BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Northern Futures Project

Mark Hunter: What progress he has made on the Northern Futures project; and if he will make a statement.

Nicholas Clegg: Before I turn to my answer, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in saying how shocked I am to have heard about the very serious air accident that appears to have happened in the Alps in the last couple of hours, with the reported very large loss of life. I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of everybody in all parts of the House are with the families and friends of those who were on board.
	Northern Futures has been a great success. It has helped us to engage thousands of people across the country in a debate about how we rebalance the economy and has helped to generate the political consensus needed to tackle the over-centralisation of power in Whitehall. Specifically, it paved the way for more than £7 billion of much needed road and rail investment announced in the autumn statement and for a set of radical decentralisation deals with Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds.

Mark Hunter: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Northern Futures is a major part of the coalition Government’s efforts to rebalance the economy after decades of over-investment in and focus on London and the south-east. Constituencies such as Cheadle, where unemployment is now just 1.4%, are key beneficiaries. Does he agree that this will be one of this Administration’s greatest legacies?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. After such a long period of over-centralisation of decision making in Whitehall, the fact
	that this coalition Government have finally been able to set Greater Manchester, Cheadle and other parts of the country free from excessive Whitehall control is a great achievement that has been accompanied by a rebalancing of the economy. Sixty per cent. of the net growth in jobs has taken place outside London and the south-east. That contrasts very favourably with Labour’s record.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Deputy Prime Minister actually going to tell me, or the people in Yorkshire where I represent the town of Huddersfield, that this late conversion to the northern powerhouse and all this talk is anything more than pie in the sky? The Government should have been doing something about the northern regions in the past five years.

Nicholas Clegg: What an absurd thing to say for a member of a party whose Government presided over a decline in manufacturing that was three times faster than under Margaret Thatcher, and who saw the north-south divide open ever wider during the 13 years of the Labour Administration. We have not just started this in the later stage of this Parliament; we have introduced city deals and local growth deals, we have devolved more funding, and we have devolved control over business rates—something never, ever undertaken by Labour.

John Leech: Health devolution will allow decision makers to prioritise health inequalities in Manchester, but does my right hon. Friend agree that health professionals in the NHS need to be involved in the detailed discussions to make sure that we get the best deal for patients in our local NHS?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, of course. Any change in something as complex and important as the NHS in any part of the country needs to be done with the fullest possible participation of the health professionals who will be delivering that change. I regularly encounter—I am sure that my hon. Friend has found the same—health professionals who complain about the straitjacket of decision making from Whitehall and who will welcome the idea that more decisions can be taken locally to suit the health needs of local communities.

Stephen Twigg: First, may I echo the Deputy Prime Minister’s words about the tragic air crash in the Alps?
	Over the past five years, average cuts to local authorities have been £80 per person, but in the Deputy Prime Minister’s city of Sheffield the figure is almost three times higher, and in my city of Liverpool it is almost five times higher. Will he take this final opportunity at the Dispatch Box to admit to the House that the Conservative Government whom he has supported for five years is no friend of the north?

Nicholas Clegg: I know that the hon. Gentleman’s party is in perpetual denial about the economic mess it bequeathed this Government. The problem is that, because of mismanagement on Labour’s watch, the economy blew up, the banks, which it was sucking up to, held a gun to our heads, and 6% was wiped off the value of our national economy, which took £2,400 off every household in this country. That is what the Labour party did. We have had to pick up the
	pieces. Of course, given that local public spending represents about a quarter of the total, savings need to be made locally as well as nationally, but that is a direct consequence of Labour’s mismanagement of the national economy.

Devolution: England

Stuart Andrew: What progress he has made on further devolution in England.

Henry Smith: What progress he has made on further devolution in England.

Greg Clark: This Government have a proud record of devolving power from central Government to the cities, towns and counties of this country: we passed the Localism Act 2011; we have initiated and negotiated 28 city deals; we are devolving at least £12 billion of central resources to local places through growth deals; and, with the Greater Manchester agreement, and agreements with other cities to follow, there is now unstoppable momentum to continue that success.

Stuart Andrew: I am grateful for that answer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the constitutional reform priority should be to ensure a fair and balanced devolution settlement for every part of the UK and to introduce English votes for English laws?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Leader of the House has made it very clear that the return of a Conservative Government will correct that injustice and there will indeed be English votes for English laws.

Henry Smith: As well as English votes for English laws and, indeed, devolution to our great cities, can my right hon. Friend assure me that a future Conservative Government will devolve more authority on service delivery to the great counties of England, which have a strong track record of democratic delivery? I welcome the growth deal from which west Sussex has benefited.

Greg Clark: Indeed I will. My hon. Friend was a distinguished leader of one such county. It is clear that the success of the city deals has introduced a model that other capable authorities can take up. I encourage all our county leaders to prepare their plans to take powers from central Government and to be in charge of those budgets that were previously tied up in Whitehall.

Graham Stringer: The devolution proposals for Greater Manchester have been widely welcomed, but the proposal to appoint an interim mayor with no executive powers is less welcome. Does the Minister agree that it should be a priority to arrange for primary legislation so that Greater Manchester can have an elected mayor?

Greg Clark: I do think there should be an elected mayor for Manchester—that is exactly what has been agreed with every one of the Greater Manchester authorities. One of the consequences of the agreement with Greater Manchester is that it will have a directly elected mayor who will be a hugely important national and international figure, as befits that great city.

Geraint Davies: Devolution of power and responsibility to Wales required an Act of Parliament and a referendum of the people, yet Manchester and elsewhere are seeing ad hoc devolution that heralds the break up of the NHS. Is it not time to do this properly, rather than play a political game in the run-up to an election?

Greg Clark: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman seems to be against the devolution that has been welcomed right across the country and that has led to the leaders of Cardiff approaching the Government to request a city deal. I will visit Cardiff later this week to begin negotiations. They will be very concerned to hear that the hon. Gentleman is against it.

Bob Russell: The population of Essex is more than double that of Cornwall, and the population of the six counties of the east of England is considerably greater than that of Wales, so may we have devolution to the powerhouse of the six counties of the east of England?

Greg Clark: Through the Government’s programme over the past few years, we have devolved—and we will complete the devolution of—£12 billion of resources that were previously administered by Ministers and officials in Whitehall to Essex and other great counties. That is work in progress, but I agree with my hon. Friend that we can and should go further.

Angus MacNeil: Can the Minister see the regions or cities of England one day having more devolution than Scotland currently has?

Greg Clark: The progress we have made in England has been significant. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have also concluded a city deal with Glasgow. Some of the reflections I have heard from Scotland state that the Scottish Government have been a rather centralising Government and that they will look to the model of decentralisation that we have pursued in England to try to save them from that over-centralisation.

Individual Electoral Registration

Richard Graham: What steps he has taken to uphold the integrity of voting in introducing individual electoral registration.

Sam Gyimah: Increasing the integrity of the electoral process is one of the fundamental reasons behind the introduction of individual electoral registration. Unlike the previous system, under which the head of the household registered people, people now have to register and have their entry verified against Government and local authority records. That is one way in which we are ensuring the integrity of the register. Furthermore, we have ensured that anyone wishing to vote by post or by proxy at the elections on 7 May must have been verified through IER. That safeguards the integrity not only of the register but of the ballot.

Richard Graham: There are almost 4,000 so-called red voters—I hope the colour is not symbolic—who were already registered in Gloucester before IER was
	introduced. They cannot vote by postal vote, but if they exist, they are entitled to vote in person. What steps has my hon. Friend’s Department taken to ensure that people do not impersonate others in polling stations?

Sam Gyimah: I thank my hon. Friend for a very good question. On the numbers of people, the number of voters carried forward from the last annual canvass who have lost their postal vote is actually very small—it is about 3% in total—and the remainder have been confirmed against Government records. This is in the context of an important safeguard that was introduced during the transition to IER, ensuring that no one registered to vote at the last annual canvass will lose their vote in May. I would add, however, that any attempt to impersonate someone at a polling station is a criminal offence.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are immensely grateful to the Minister.

Sam Gyimah: Further action that we have taken is £500,000—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are extraordinarily obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was going to thank him for the notable comprehensiveness of his response, which is a polite way of exhorting him to resume his seat.

William McCrea: Will the Minister tell the House what he believes has been the effectiveness of individual and continuous registration in Northern Ireland? Does he accept the importance and value of continuing the annual household canvass to achieve robust electoral registration?

Sam Gyimah: We have learned the lessons from Northern Ireland. One of the things we have preserved in the transition to IER is indeed the annual canvass. That is also why we have carried over people from the last annual canvass to ensure that no one who was registered to vote as at January 2014 will lose their right to vote come 7 May.

Julian Huppert: Voting integrity is obviously important. There are real concerns that many students, particularly first-year students, will not get on the register. I have been trying to encourage them to register and to vote. What has the Minister done to make sure that they have a chance to vote?

Sam Gyimah: Ensuring that everyone who is eligible to vote is on the register and can exercise that right has been a priority of the Government throughout the transition to IER. We have made £500,000 available to the National Union of Students to run a programme to register students to vote. We are also working with universities so that they can provide data to local authorities, which can then chase up students not on the register to get them on to the register.

Sadiq Khan: Despite the warm words from the Minister, at the end of this Parliament there will be many millions who are entitled to vote but missing from the electoral register. The Government’s cack-handed and rushed move to individual electoral registration has made things worse. Fortunately, others are trying to repair the damage—Hope not Hate, Bite
	the Ballot, Operation Black Vote, the
	Daily Mirror
	, trade unions, Operation Disabled Vote, faith groups, the Labour party and many others. Will the Minister join me in thanking and commending all those working hard to ensure that all those entitled to vote are registered to vote?

Sam Gyimah: I will take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman. The Labour party left office with 7.5 million people missing from the register. IER was Labour’s policy, and this Government have taken it forward. Of course the Government have worked with a whole series of groups, including private organisations such as Facebook, to promote registration. Indeed, national voter registration day saw 166,000 people register to vote. Operation Black Vote has received funding from this Government to get people on the register. You left the register with 7.5 million people missing; we are putting it right.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have done no such thing.

Devolution: South-West

Andrew George: What plans he has to devolve powers to Cornwall.

Nicholas Clegg: In January this year, I announced that we will devolve to Cornwall an extra £11.3 million from the local growth fund, bringing the total investment devolved to Cornwall to £60.2 million. I have made it clear that I would like to go much further and pass legislation in the next Parliament to allow the Cornish people to have a Cornish assembly with power over housing, health care and transport, if that is what the people of Cornwall want.

Andrew George: I hope that my right hon. Friend does not think that I am damning him with faint praise when I say that he is the best party leader by far. He will therefore recognise that Cornwall will benefit a great deal from the proposed devolution-enabling Act. Does he agree that under those proposals Cornwall and places like it could redesign their planning and housing systems to put local need above speculators’ greed and the increase in second homes?

Nicholas Clegg: As my hon. Friend rightly suggests, we should push ahead with devolution and decentralisation across the United Kingdom in the next Parliament, but not to a fixed blueprint. Some areas may want to go further and faster than others. If, in Cornwall, it is felt that a Cornish assembly, born out of the existing county council—it would not be yet another talking shop for politicians, and could even cut the number of politicians if it wished to—should have powers over planning, such as those that he suggests, I would hope that we would empower it in that way.

Oliver Colvile: The Plymouth and south-west peninsula city deal, which was announced recently along with the enterprise zone, will ensure that there is significant investment in Devon and Cornwall and that there are new jobs. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that if, by some misfortune, the Labour party got into power, the focus would no longer be on Devon and Cornwall but elsewhere?

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Labour party has never sought to look after the interests of the south-west, nor the interests of the national economy more broadly. Without a stronger economy, it is impossible to create a fairer society in which power is distributed to all parts of the United Kingdom, including the south-west.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Debbie Abrahams.

Constitutional and Political Reform

Debbie Abrahams: What steps he is taking to ensure that residents of Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency benefit from the Government’s constitutional and political reform proposals.

Greg Clark: The residents of the hon. Lady’s constituency will benefit from the biggest devolution of powers from central Government to local government for decades. The Greater Manchester city deal and the growth deal agreement will put the transport budget in the hands of the people of Manchester; see the building of 15,000 extra homes over the next 10 years; devolve the skills budget, securing more and better training; allow 100% of business rate revenue to be retained locally; and bring together £6 billion of health and social care budgets to join up services. That is all part of this Government’s northern powerhouse initiative.

Debbie Abrahams: More than 112,000 people were made homeless in 2013, which was an increase of 26% on 2010. That can be directly attributed to the Government’s welfare policies, including their new sanctions regime, and to the lack of affordable housing. My office has been inundated with homelessness cases over the past few months. How does the Minister think the increase in homelessness will affect voter registration?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady’s initial question was about how the Government’s policies on devolution and constitutional reform have benefited her constituents and I set that out in terms. I would have thought that she would want to recognise that, as did the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). The front page of the Manchester Evening News put it in this way: “We’re All Winners!” Part of the gain for Manchester is that local people can make more of the local decisions, including those on housing, as I mentioned in my previous answer.

Topical Questions

Greg Mulholland: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Nicholas Clegg: As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on the full range of Government policy initiatives. I take special responsibility for the Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

Greg Mulholland: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I urge him to intervene in the campaign to get the drugs that are needed for those with Morquio syndrome, Duchenne muscular dystrophy and tuberous sclerosis. The Prime Minister said that there should be
	continuity of treatment, yet we have found out that that will not be delivered by the Department of Health. Katy Brown, the mother of my six-year-old constituent Sam Brown, has said that that is at best “misleading, at worst underhand”. This situation is disgraceful. We need to fund those drugs now on an interim basis. Will my right hon. Friend speak to the Prime Minister and get it sorted this week?

Nicholas Clegg: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way he has sought to represent his constituent Sam Brown, and all the other children and their families who are—quite understandably—concerned about the continued provision of these drugs. As he heard from the Prime Minister when he raised the matter at Prime Minister’s questions two weeks ago, the understanding is that NHS England is conducting a review that will conclude by the end of next month. In the meantime, drug companies will continue with the provision of these drugs until the end of May, so that continuity is assured. Given my hon. Friend’s concerns, I will undertake to look urgently at the matter again.

Harriet Harman: In an interview last week the Deputy Prime Minister pronounced that
	“the way in which politics works is bust”
	and that “Westminster is a joke”. When he said that, was he referring to himself?

Nicholas Clegg: I wonder what answer I should give to that. No, of course not.

Harriet Harman: He went on in that interview to say that he is now “more anti-establishment” than he was five years ago. Were those the same five years in which he took the ministerial car, the ministerial salary and the Tory Whip? Were they the same five years in which he trebled tuition fees, imposed the bedroom tax, put up VAT and cut taxes for millionaires? However he describes himself, the only thing people in this country will remember him for is giving a whole new meaning to the phrase, “Yes, Prime Minister.”

Nicholas Clegg: I cannot blame the right hon. and learned Lady; she certainly finished in the style to which we have all been accustomed for the last five years by reading out pre-rehearsed questions. I think that the era of single-party government in this country is over. I know she does not like that idea and that the establishment parties—those Members sitting both behind me and in front of me—do not like it either, but I think it is over. This coalition Government have, in very difficult circumstances, presided over what is now the fastest growing economy in the developed world, with more people in work than ever before, and more women in work than ever before, after the absolute economic mess she bequeathed us. That is quite an achievement.

David Rutley: I welcome the focus that growth deals are giving to investment priorities in north-east Cheshire and across the country. What steps are being taken to help boost and support the life sciences corridor in Cheshire and across Manchester, and to help boost jobs in Macclesfield as well?

Nicholas Clegg: I know that the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities was recently at Alderley Park, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s personal contribution to the Alderley Park taskforce. I am pleased that through the local growth deals Cheshire and Greater Manchester secured an allocation from the Government of £20 million towards their joint £4 million LEP life science investment fund. More broadly, we must build on strengths in the health care sector in the north of England. That is why in last week’s Budget £20 million was announced for the “health north” initiative, which will enable better care for patients and promote medical innovation in the north of England.

Rosie Cooper: Through local growth deals and local enterprise partnerships the Government claim to be giving local communities greater control over spending priorities with one hand, yet they savagely make cuts with the other. That means a real failure to deliver projects in places such as West Lancashire that are on the edges of our cities, and they are missing much of the investment that could be made. In the final stages of this Government, will the Minister acknowledge that that has not been fair to all our communities?

Nicholas Clegg: This is the second time the issue has been raised, and it would be so much easier to take seriously the hon. Lady’s concern about savings that have been asked of local government were it not for the fact that the shadow Chancellor has said that hundreds of millions of pounds would be asked of local government in further cuts if the Labour party won the next election. Which is it? Does the Labour party believe that further savings need to be made from local government, or not? Officially it says that those savings will need to be made, even in the next Parliament as we continue to balance the books, yet in this House the hon. Lady and her colleagues somehow think that no savings are required whatsoever. I am afraid savings will continue to be required until we have finished balancing the books and balancing them fairly.

Charlie Elphicke: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of representations that there should be a tax on family homes in London and the south-east to pay for nurses in Scotland? Does he agree that we need to have a fair Union and a strong Government, not a weak Government dancing to the tune of, and held to ransom by, the Scottish National party?

Nicholas Clegg: I certainly agree that in the same way as it would be very ill-advised to put the UK Independence party in charge of Europe, it would be very ill-advised to put the SNP in charge of a country it wishes to pull apart.
	On property taxation, as the hon. Gentleman knows we have a property tax system, the council tax, which rather eccentrically ends at a certain level. My party therefore believes it is logical to extend the principle of banded taxation for properties higher up the value chain, both here in the south-east and elsewhere.

Andrew McDonald: Given the overwhelming dominance of London and the south-east in the unelected second Chamber, does
	the Deputy Prime Minister agree that an elected senate of the nations and regions would be a good way to give the regions of England a stronger say in how the country is run?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, that would be an excellent idea. I only wish the hon. Gentleman’s party had actually abided by his wisdom when we had the chance to vote for an elected second Chamber. For specious procedural reasons, the Labour party turned its back on its long-held traditional view in favour of democracy in the second Chamber. I agree that one of the virtues of an elected second Chamber is precisely that it would provide an accurate reflection of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom at the other end of the building.

Julian Huppert: Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, has said that by 2020 the NHS will need an extra £8 billion a year at the very minimum to provide the services we all need. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is our duty as politicians to find that funding, and that any party going into this election saying that it will provide less than that is, no matter how it spins it, actually saying that it will underfund the NHS?

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Simon Stevens’s analysis of the financial needs of the NHS specified that by the end of the next Parliament there would be an £8 billion funding gap. That is not some sort of easy throwaway figure; it was identified on the basis of certain assumptions about considerable continued savings in the NHS. The Liberal Democrats have specified how we would find that £8 billion. It is now for other parties in the House to come clean on how they would find the money identified by Simon Stevens.

Steve Rotheram: The Deputy Prime Minister and I have not always seen eye to eye, but as it is his last appearance in the Chamber I will go easy on this occasion. He failed to mention, when he answered Question 1, that Liverpool is a part of the northern powerhouse. What guarantees can he give that my city will have a seat front and centre at the top table of the northern powerhouse?

Nicholas Clegg: I very much hope it is not the last time the hon. Gentleman and I interact across the Floor of the House of Commons—and in this configuration as well. Liverpool already has a seat at the top table of the Northern Futures and northern powerhouse initiatives. The significant rail and road transport projects, which were confirmed just last week, had Liverpool very much at their heart. They will lead to significantly improved road and rail connections from Liverpool to the rest of the north-west and to the rest of the country. The good thing is that those proposals were developed on a cross-party basis—of all parties—and in a consensus of both national Government and local government, including in Liverpool.

Stephen Mosley: As someone who was initially sceptical about the longevity of the coalition Government, I am very proud of our achievements and very pleased with our
	successes. Consequently, I would award the current Government nine marks out of 10. How many marks out of 10 would the Deputy Prime Minister rate the current Government?

Nicholas Clegg: I will leave the marking and the scores to other people. I look to hearing the scores that will no doubt be delivered by other, more critical voices shortly. I agree with my hon. Friend that the durability of the coalition Government was not widely predicted when we were formed. I remember, when the coalition started, reading almost daily portentous predictions that the coalition Government would not survive. We have survived for half a decade and we have done so in the national interest.

Paul Flynn: The Deputy Prime Minister promised in the coalition agreement to set a limit on the number of special advisers. There were 71 under Labour. There are 107 now, including 20 in his office, at a cost of £1,200,000. Does he believe in leading by exhortation rather than example?

Nicholas Clegg: We have been more open and transparent about the employment of special advisers than any previous Government, and I have never hidden the fact that in a coalition Government of two parties, clearly both parties will wish to employ special advisers in order to facilitate the mechanics and workings of government.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Richard Graham. [Interruption.] Get in there, Mr Graham; your moment is now.

Richard Graham: May I thank the Deputy Prime Minister’s office warmly for all its hard work in ensuring that growth deals for Gloucester and Gloucestershire have been delivered over the past five years, and may I exhort him to do more of the same in the next Parliament?

Nicholas Clegg: I thank my hon. Friend. I agree that the growth deals have set an important precedent in handing more power, money and decision-making authority to local communities, and I hope it sets a trend that will not be reversed in the next Parliament.

Mr Speaker: It is no surprise that the previous career of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was as a Foreign Office diplomat. He is able to react to any situation, even when he is busily consulting his iPhone. We are deeply obliged to him.

Barry Sheerman: I notice that the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for building strategic relations with Europe. Given how weak our country is in Europe and NATO and how so many people compare this Prime Minister with Neville Chamberlain, is he proud of the job he has done promoting Britain in Europe?

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman gets very worked up. It is no secret that there are differences of opinion in this coalition Government on some of the big long-term issues concerning Britain’s future in the EU. My party will never argue for withdrawal
	from the EU, because we think it is in our overwhelming national interest to remain part of it. I would say this, however: political and diplomatic strength is directly related to economic strength, and, in my view, if we stay the course and finish the job—and finish it fairly—of fixing the finances and continuing to rewire the British economy, within a generation it could be the largest and most potent economy in Europe, which will deliver considerable clout to future generations.

Bob Blackman: Given that London’s economy is greater than Scotland’s and Wales’s combined, as we devolve power to Scotland and Wales and the northern powerhouse, what plans does my right hon. Friend have for making sure that devolution flows to London as well?

Nicholas Clegg: I agree that the process of devolution and decentralisation not only to the different nations of the UK but to the different parts of England is an ongoing process that should benefit all parts of the country, including London. Just last week, announcements were made of the further devolution of powers to the London Mayor’s office, in addition to the considerable powers he already possesses. That could be built upon in the future.

Helen Jones: The Deputy Prime Minister’s proposals for the alternative vote system were roundly defeated in a referendum. Will he tell the voters whether he is now prepared to take no for an answer?

Nicholas Clegg: I would like the hon. Lady to confirm—perhaps by raising a hand—which party had AV as its manifesto commitment in the last election. It was not the Liberal Democrats; it was not the Conservatives—oh, it was the Labour party’s policy. We put to the British people her party’s own policy, and she now wants me to disown it. Honestly, of all the topsy-turvy accusations I have had levelled at me, that really takes the biscuit.

Peter Bone: For the last five years, I have tried to irritate the Deputy Prime Minister by asking him questions exposing Liberal Democrat failures, and he has always answered with good grace and good humour—although never the question I asked, of course—and I think that history will look on him as having been courageous in bringing his party into a national Government at a time of crisis. He should take great credit for that. My final question to the Deputy Prime Minister is simple: will he confirm whether he intends to serve another full term as Deputy Prime Minister?

Nicholas Clegg: I have enjoyed answering—or in the hon. Gentleman’s view, not answering—his questions on many occasions and perhaps look forward to doing so again in the future. I would happily settle for two terms as Prime Minister.

David Winnick: Because the Prime Minister has listed a number of people who might want his job and because a leadership contest might come much sooner than he wishes, would the
	Deputy Prime Minister like to indicate those of his colleagues who are likely to wish to replace him? One obvious candidate is not present at the moment.

Nicholas Clegg: Er, no.

Andrew George: I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement on additional funding for childhood and adolescent mental health services. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that we will never again see children and adolescents being held in police cells because there are insufficient in-patient beds? We need more tier 3 and tier 4 facilities for young people.

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree. It is very good indeed that something close to a cross-party consensus has emerged over the last few years in favour of dealing with generations of discrimination—and it is discrimination—against mental health in the NHS and, within that, an almost institutionalised form of cruelty through which very vulnerable children and adolescents with serious mental health conditions have not been treated and cared for. This cannot be reversed and corrected overnight, but we can make a start. We have done that, and last week’s announcement in the Budget of a £1.25 billion investment in children and young adult mental health services will have a transformative effect on the tens of thousands of children who will now be better treated than they have been for a long time.

Mark Lazarowicz: My constituents, I am happy to say, voted for AV in the recent referendum, but they were not among the majority. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that with a five-party system at the UK level—and even more throughout the nations and regions of the UK—we need to look again at the electoral system and that this should be a priority for a constitutional convention hopefully set up under a Labour Government?

Nicholas Clegg: One should not expect to ask a Liberal Democrat about electoral reform and fail to get a hearty answer—well, perhaps not a hearty answer, but the hon. Gentleman knows what I mean. The electoral system we have is woefully unrepresentative of the way people vote. As he rightly suggests, it is becoming ever more unrepresentative as the old duopoly of politics gives way to something much more fluid and plural. Our electoral system—and, indeed, the way in which we conduct our business here—is stuck firmly in the past. It is anachronistic; it will have to change; in my view, it will change one day.

David Ward: Is the Deputy Prime Minister as disappointed as I am that the groundbreaking devolution deal announced for West Yorkshire received a less than generous response from certain West Yorkshire council leaders?

Nicholas Clegg: I agree. I was struck by the rather churlish and sour note coming from a number of Labour leaders in West Yorkshire about a deal that amounts to a very significant transfer of power, money and responsibility to Leeds and the west Yorkshire area. It was warmly welcomed by Roger Marsh, the chair of
	the local enterprise partnership. It would be much better if we could work on a cross-party basis to welcome rather than denigrate those steps towards further devolution.

Chris Bryant: Only days ago, the Government appointed a Conservative Member of Parliament to the £45,000 a year job as chair of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Today we learn that another Conservative MP is about to be appointed to another office of profit under the Crown. Is this not a flagrant example of jobs for the boys, and will the anti-establishment bit that is left in the Deputy Prime Minister condemn such appointments?

Nicholas Clegg: I am not entirely sure which specific instances the hon. Gentleman alludes to, but everybody remembers the explosion in quangocracy under the Labour Government when legions of placemen and women were dotted around the country by the Labour party. In fact, many of them are still in post.

Philip Davies: The Government have devolved an awful lot of funding down to Labour-controlled west Yorkshire councils for their transport priorities. What can be done to make sure that we get some true devolution, so that the money can flow down to places such as Shipley for the much-need Shipley eastern bypass, and so that the money is not just kept by these Labour councils for pet projects in Labour heartlands?

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Every time we enter into local growth deals, particularly those that are centred on big metropolitan authorities and big urban areas, there is legitimate concern—which was reflected in his question—about the possibility that some outlying or linked rural communities will not get a slice of the pie. Growth deals should be constructed in a way that allows both rural and urban areas to be included at every stage.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Stalking: Prosecutions

Caroline Dinenage: What steps the Crown Prosecution Service has taken in the last two years to ensure that prosecutors are able to prosecute stalking and harassment cases more effectively.

Robert Buckland: The Crown Prosecution Service has taken a number of steps recently to ensure that that can happen. A joint police and CPS protocol on stalking was launched in September last year, and CPS legal guidance was revised to reflect that development. In addition, prosecutors have been given training on the new stalking offences.

Caroline Dinenage: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that stalking and harassment online is taken as seriously as other forms of such behaviour?

Robert Buckland: Yes, I can confirm that. Recent changes in the law that were introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 will make it easier to prosecute those serious cases by extending the time limits on summary-only communications offences, and
	by allowing cases covered by section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to be dealt with in the Crown court.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am pleased that this question has been asked, but I am rather concerned about the lumping together of general harassment and stalking. The Solicitor-General knows full well that stalking is a distinct offence and should be treated accordingly.

Robert Buckland: The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. I pay tribute to him, because this is probably the last occasion on which he will be able to raise such matters here. I am sure that he will continue to campaign in whatever capacity his party allows him to, and I wish him well.
	In the year to last December, 818 stalking offences had been brought to prosecution. We now need to calculate the proportion of successful prosecutions, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that more work will be done through extrapolation from those figures.

Andrew Gwynne: The Crown Prosecution Service, which, after all, is a demand-led organisation, has experienced a 28% cut in its funding since 2010, which equates to £200 million a year. Does the Solicitor-General think that that is helping or hindering the prosecution of stalking and harassment cases?

Robert Buckland: As I said a moment ago, had it not been for the Government’s changes in the law, we would not be bringing all those extra cases to court. The CPS is performing well against 11 of its 12 key performance measures, and is rising to the challenge. Conviction rates are broadly the same as they were five years ago, and I think that that should be met with encouragement rather than despair.

Child Sexual Abuse

Meg Munn: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the current Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on prosecuting cases of child sexual abuse.

Jeremy Wright: In October 2013, the CPS issued guidelines setting out a new approach to child sexual abuse cases. Steps to be taken include the use of specialist prosecutors, the provision of dedicated CPS units to manage such cases, and the application of a new approach to considering evidence in such cases. In 2013-14, the number of child abuse prosecutions rose by 440 to 7,998, and the conviction rate was 76.2%, which is the highest that it has ever been.

Meg Munn: I welcome the Attorney-General’s reply. As he will know, prosecuting sexual offences is very difficult, and such prosecutions are particularly difficult for children. When the guidelines were introduced, it was feared that not all the measures involved would be properly introduced everywhere. What steps are being taken to review the process and keep track of what happening, so that there can be a proper evaluation and good practice can be built on?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady is right to ask that question. We do keep such matters under review, and as she will appreciate, a large part of the process involves ensuring that prosecutors are properly trained and encouraged to do what the guidelines say they should do. We will ensure that they receive that ongoing training and updating, but I think that the signs are encouraging. I think that we are doing more of the things that we need to do to ensure that child witnesses, in particular, are accommodated properly in the court system, so that they can give the best evidence that they are able to give.

Alan Beith: In this very difficult field, does the Attorney-General recognise that the Crown Prosecution Service must learn some lessons from its mistakes, but also that its independent ability to prosecute without fear or favour must not be called into question?

Jeremy Wright: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. It is right that, where mistakes are made, they should be learned from, but of course, as he will appreciate, it does not follow that cases that result in an acquittal should never have been brought as prosecutions in the first place. That is not the way the system works; it is important to make that point. It is also right, as he has heard me say before, that regardless of what someone does for a living or their position in society, if a prosecution is appropriate, according to the evidence and the tests that are applied, it should be brought.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister believe that it would be better for the CPS to have clear guidelines? Should not statutory rape, which ends at 12 at the moment, be extended to a higher age, or should we even consider raising the age of consent to 17?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Gentleman asks some interesting questions to which, fortunately, it is not for me to determine the answers, but I am sure that he will appreciate that it is important that wherever the boundaries are set, the CPS prosecutes under the law as it stands as effectively as it can, and we must do all we can to ensure that it does.

Bob Blackman: It is clear from the evidence from Rotherham and the inquiries that have been conducted that what the victims of child sexual abuse said was not accepted; they were not believed by the authorities and they were not supported by the CPS. What measures can my right hon. and learned Friend take to ensure that victims are given priority in the system, and are believed and supported all the way through?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the substantial problems here. It is important—this is part of the guidelines I described earlier—that prosecutors address their preconceptions and prejudices as to how young people who come forward with these allegations should or should not have been behaving, and how they should or should not react if they had been subject to those kinds of abuse. We also need to ensure that prosecutors challenge prejudices and preconceptions in court, so that in the presentation of
	prosecutions, evidence is called, where appropriate, to challenge those, and so that judges say what they need to say to juries to make sure that no one proceeds under a false preconception.

Human Rights: Domestic and International Obligations

Jeremy Corbyn: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on implementation of the UK’s domestic and international legal obligations on human rights.

David Hanson: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on implementation of the UK’s domestic and international legal obligations on human rights.

Jeremy Wright: I have regular discussions with colleagues about a large number of important issues. As the House knows, by convention advice the Law Officers may have given is not disclosed outside Government. However, domestic and international human rights remain an important aspect of our law and key considerations in the Law Officers’ work.

Jeremy Corbyn: Since human rights is an international issue and an international obligation, and rights are universal, will the Attorney-General take this opportunity to say he has no intention of withdrawing from the European convention on human rights and thus undermining the whole cause of human rights and justice across the continent and diminishing Britain’s ability to criticise anybody else for human rights abuses?

Jeremy Wright: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I make a distinction between what is in the convention, which I wholly support, and the interpretation of the convention given by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, with which I have some disagreement, and I do not think we should confuse the two. Neither do I believe that it is axiomatic that the only way to have a good record on human rights is to be a member of the European convention on human rights and a signatory to it. Countries such as New Zealand, Australia and Canada, none of which, obviously, are signatories to this document, all have a very good record.
	Similarly, it is not right to assume that countries that are members of the European convention on human rights have a spotless human rights record. That clearly is not the case either; one need only look at some of the countries that are signatories to see that. Membership of the convention is neither necessary nor sufficient for a country to have a good human rights record, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a future Conservative Government will be utterly committed to the maintenance of human rights, both domestically and abroad.

David Hanson: I know the Attorney-General’s primary job is to advise the Government, but on this occasion, just for old time’s sake, could he advise me? Given the Conservative party’s plan to scrap the Human Rights Act 1998, what rights do my constituents currently have that they will not have under the next Government if the Conservatives are elected?

Jeremy Wright: What I believe—and what I suspect many of our constituents believe—is that human rights are important, but that it should be our courts that adjudicate on such questions rather than the Court in Strasbourg. It is extremely important to recognise that the Court in Strasbourg has given rulings suggesting that responsibility for some matters that the right hon. Gentleman and I would agree should be determined by Parliament in this country should be accrued to that Court in Strasbourg. That is simply wrong. He knows that, and I know that. The other thing that he knows, as a member of the Opposition home affairs team and a former Minister in the Home Office, is that it has been extremely difficult to deport those who create a real threat to the British people, because of their abuse of human rights laws. We intend to do something about that, but it appears that his party does not.

Anne McIntosh: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be prudent to revert to the situation that we had before the Human Rights Act was passed, in which a court case could be referred to the European Court of Human Rights, and the ruling could then be applied to the law of the land?

Jeremy Wright: I certainly think that the judgments of the Court in Strasbourg will be looked at by our courts in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes, and that they will no doubt take note of some of them. I do not think it right, however, that the courts in this country should be obliged to take account of the judgments of the Strasbourg Court, and that is what we would change. It is perfectly reasonable for the courts in this country to look at judgments not only from Europe but from other jurisdictions, but it should not be obligatory for them to do so, and that is what we would change.

Karl Turner: We need clarification on this point, because the Government’s position on human rights is chaotic. We know that the Law Officers are at loggerheads on this issue, and that the very sensible former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), was sacked in the Prime Minister’s massacre of the moderates because of his “poor” human rights stance. The Minister knows, however, that the European Court declares more than 98% of claims against the UK to be without merit, so why will he not celebrate the excellent Human Rights Act and commend Strasbourg for its common-sense decisions in most of those cases?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Gentleman seems to be inviting me to accept that it is fine to have a power that one should not have, so long as one does not use it all the time. That is simply not the position that we should be in. He is, of course, right to suggest that this is an important subject, and it will be an important subject in 44 days’ time when the British people will make a judgment on it. It would be useful to know whether Labour is utterly content with the state of human rights law in this country and would make no changes to it whatever. If that is Labour’s view, as it seems to be, the public need to understand that, come election day.

Vulnerable Witnesses

Andrew Bridgen: What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to provide greater assistance to vulnerable witnesses and to support them better in giving evidence in court.

Robert Buckland: The Crown Prosecution Service is committed to improving the experience at court for all witnesses, and CPS staff work closely with the police and the voluntary sector to ensure that vulnerable witnesses are supported through the criminal justice system. Special measures such as the use of intermediaries or screens in court can also be applied to provide greater support for witnesses who give evidence.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Minister agree that there is a clear need for children and other vulnerable witnesses to have the ability to give their evidence away from court, to ensure that as many prosecutions as possible can progress?

Robert Buckland: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am encouraged by the work that has been done in the pilot courts in Leeds, Kingston and Liverpool on the use of section 28 provisions to allow the cross-examination of children and young people away from court. I very much hope that that will become the norm as soon as possible.

Valerie Vaz: In the light of the Eleanor de Freitas case, will the Solicitor-General review the guidance to ensure that the provision of support and counselling services to vulnerable people is not removed abruptly?

Robert Buckland: That was a particularly sensitive and difficult case that, as the hon. Lady knows, was the subject of careful consideration and reconsideration. We must avoid a sudden cut-off of support and help. I know that police family liaison officers do a huge amount of work before and after cases, and I would like to ensure that that sort of work continues, particularly in sensitive cases such as the one that she has raised.

Pro Bono Work

Sheryll Murray: What steps he has taken to promote pro bono work among members of the legal profession.

Robert Buckland: The Attorney-General and I are the pro bono champions for the Government, and we are helped in this work by two pro bono co-ordinating committees, which bring together the leading organisations dedicated to the delivery of pro bono legal representation, both here and abroad. We took part in a wide range of events during national pro bono week last November, and we will take part in further events this year.

Sheryll Murray: What assistance can my hon. and learned Friend offer constituents of mine on limited incomes to get legal advice that they need?

Robert Buckland: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The national pro bono website, www. nationalprobonocentre.org.uk, gives information on a
	wide range of organisations that offer pro bono legal assistance. Of course, the local citizens advice bureau is a very good gateway through which her constituents can obtain more specialist legal services.

Domestic Abuse

Mark Pawsey: What recent steps the Crown Prosecution Service has taken to ensure that prosecutors are able to prosecute cases of domestic abuse more effectively.

Robert Buckland: The Director of Public Prosecutions has announced new guidance on the handling of cases of domestic abuse, and it was published on 30 December. That guidance deals with the handling of all aspects of domestic abuse and offending, including the many ways in which abusers can control, coerce and psychologically abuse their victims. The CPS has contributed to the development of the new domestic abuse offence of coercive controlling behaviour, which was introduced in the Serious Crime Act 2015.

Mark Pawsey: With organisations in my constituency such as Warwickshire Domestic Violence Support Services and RoSA—Rape or Sexual Abuse Support—in Rugby doing great work supporting victims, the number of referrals across the country of domestic violence allegations is at its highest ever recorded. What action is being taken to make sure that more of these cases that are coming to light are being prosecuted?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, and I pay tribute to those organisations in his constituency, which do so much to protect women and families from the scourge of domestic abuse. Last year, the CPS charged in 72,905 domestic violence cases referred to it by the police, which is the highest volume and proportion ever recorded—it is a 21% rise from the previous year. It is anticipated that the CPS will be dealing with up to 20,000 more domestic violence cases than two years ago.

Bribery Act

Hugh Bayley: How many prosecutions have been initiated by the Serious Fraud Office under the Bribery Act 2010.

Robert Buckland: The Serious Fraud Office has initiated prosecutions against three individuals under the Bribery Act 2010, with two having been convicted.

Hugh Bayley: I spent more than 10 years arguing for a radical change in the law on bribery, which was passed as the 2010 Act, with all-party support, just before the last election. The OECD, which has criticised us in the past for not doing enough to implement its convention, thinks it is important that from time to time cases are brought before the courts. Will the Solicitor-General assure me that the SFO has adequate resources to investigate and prosecute cases of this kind?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to him, as he is retiring from this place, for his assiduous work on this and other
	issues over the years. He rightly says that it is important for the reputation of this country that cases are brought, under either the new Act or the old Act. We must not forget that we have had a number of key successes in non-Bribery Act cases that predate the passage of this legislation, most notably the prosecution of Smith & Ouzman Ltd for bribes paid to Kenyan officials in relation to the electoral processes. We have had a number of successes, which we should celebrate.

Bob Neill: Does the Solicitor-General agree that part of the SFO’s success in recent years in these matters stems from the rigour
	that David Green, QC, has brought as its director, because of his experience in private practice? Is that perhaps a lesson for future appointments to other senior prosecuting bodies?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, and I join him in thanking the director for the hard work he is putting in to ensure that the SFO performs well and improves its progress. On the previous question on resources, may I just say that the availability of blockbuster funding means that the SFO has the flexibility to prosecute cases as and when they arise and meet the threshold test?

Rural Payments Agency: Basic Payment Scheme

Maria Eagle: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government’s failure to deliver a digital-only system for processing the basic payment scheme via the Rural Payments Agency, and what assurances she can give to UK farmers that the failure will not result in significant delays to the receipt of their basic payment?

George Eustice: I am grateful for this opportunity to update the House. This is the first year of the new basic payment scheme. As the new common agricultural policy is so complex, we needed to invest in a new computer system to administer claims; the existing single payment scheme computer system would not have been able to cope. The new system included a core, which was there to process data and which was based on an existing system used in other countries, and a portal that enabled farmers to register their details and to map land passes.
	The core of the new rural payment system is working well. To date, more than 80% of farm businesses in England have registered successfully on it, so they can submit a BPS claim. We continue to engage and encourage farm businesses to register online as soon as possible. However, there have been performance issues with the online interface that enables farmers to input the data directly, especially when it comes to mapping land passes. We have been working to address those issues since February. Our priority has always been to ensure that farmers can submit their claims by the deadline. That is why we have made adjustments to our plans. The RPA is now offering farmers and their agents the option of using existing paper-based forms to finalise their claims. Information from those forms will then be input by the RPA on to the system.
	There are two new ways in which farmers can complete their claims. Farm businesses with little change to their land will be fast-tracked by the RPA. In particular, those who predominantly have permanent pasture will not need to map those details. They will receive an e-mail in April that summarises the land and entitlement information already held on record, together with simple instructions on completing their claim by e-mail. The RPA has identified approximately 39,000 farmers who fall into that category.
	Secondly, farm businesses that need to map new features can use blank existing forms to prepare their claims before they are sent a pre-populated form in early April. They can submit their claim by e-mail, by post, or through an RPA drop-in centre, and we have 50 of those now established. Separately, all agents will have received maps of their clients’ land from the RPA by the end of next week. Those dealing with the most complex cases will be offered additional support. The RPA is also exploring the option of giving some agents direct access to the system so that they can make applications quickly.
	This is a pragmatic response that applies to the application process in 2015. It means that we will be able to make payments to farmers when the payment
	window opens in December 2015. All data entered so far on the rural payment scheme system have been saved and will be used by the RPA to complete farmers’ claims this year.
	In addition, a number of other EU countries have had difficulties in getting their IT systems in place this year to process this first year of a new, more complicated CAP. In parallel, the Commission has offered an option to member states, allowing them to extend to 15 June the deadline for basic payment scheme applications. That was discussed on 16 March in a Council meeting, which I attended, and it was confirmed by the Commission on 19 March.
	In conclusion, the core of the new system works and we are not abandoning anything. We will continue to use it and it will enable claims to be processed efficiently this year and will be the basis for service improvements in future years. However, the action that we announced last week will ensure that farmers can submit their applications successfully this year, and it has been welcomed by stakeholders and those in the industry.
	Given the imminence of the general election, I am keen that we communicate with the Opposition on this issue and keep them in touch. I have written to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) explaining the current situation in detail, and, as she knows, I have offered to meet her, with Mark Grimshaw, to discuss the matter further. Our offices are in discussion about a date for that meeting, which I intend to happen this week. I am also more than happy to keep Opposition Front-Bench Members updated on the changes in the weeks ahead.

Maria Eagle: Many farmers will be depending on the basic payment scheme to keep their business afloat and on prompt payment to maintain vital cash flow. Given the seriousness of this matter, I am astounded that the Under-Secretary of State has been sent to this House to deal with it. Where is the Secretary of State? As well as refusing to answer questions on BBC’s “Farming Today”, she now appears to be running away from her duties to this House. Let us hope that the Select Committee has better luck getting her to appear tomorrow.
	The disastrous late admission from Ministers that the mapping functionality of the Government’s digital by default system for making payments to farmers does not work is a serious blow to hard-working farmers, not least because the Secretary of State said on 11 March, in evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee:
	“The maps are up and running.”
	We have all heard rumours for weeks, but the Government have blithely continued, heads in the sand, to insist that everything will work. As recently as 12 March, at the last DEFRA oral questions, the Under-Secretary of State was saying that his only plan was to make the system work; there was no contingency. As a consequence, many farmers who have endured incredible frustration trying to use the system to map the land, or have paid agents to do it for them, now face having to do it all again on paper, and at one of the busiest times of the farming year. How frustrating and wasteful of time and hard-earned money.
	Will the Under-Secretary of State please tell the House why Ministers have repeatedly given assurances that the system works that have turned out not to be
	accurate? Will those farmers who have paid agents to make their claims online be compensated for now having to pay them again to submit the same information? It has previously been insisted that the scheme is too complex for paper. Now we have reverted to paper, so is there an increased risk of errors, which could result in penalties? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in future farmers will be able to access and use the information they have already submitted, or will they be forced to start again?
	On Saturday, Mark Grimshaw, the chief executive of the Rural Payments Agency, referred to the fact that EU payment window is open until the end of June. He said:
	“I am absolutely confident that we will pay within the payment window.”
	For farmers expecting their payments in December, that is far from reassuring. It is disastrous. Will the one-month delay in the deadline for applications cause a delay in payments? Mr Grimshaw has said:
	“It will be foolhardy of me to commit to anything in December”.
	What does the Minister expect farmers to do for cash flow while they wait for their cheques?
	When did Ministers first hear that the digital by default system they chose to insist upon would not work? Why did they not implement contingency arrangements sooner, to save farmers the time and expense now wasted? How much money has been wasted? Finally, can the Under-Secretary of State assure the House that Ministers will now remove their heads from the sand, rise above the chaos and confusion their incompetence has caused, and come clean to the House: will the mapping functionality ever work, or will it need to be completely replaced?

George Eustice: I will begin by reminding the Opposition of their own record on the Rural Payments Agency. Let us not forget that in 2005, the system they introduced led to £600 million of disallowance for this country. Payments were regularly more than a year late—hardly any farmers ever received their payments on time. It took a Conservative-led Government coming to power in 2010 to sort it out.
	The hon. Lady asks whether everything will have to be resubmitted on paper. As I made clear in my opening statement, for those farmers who have managed to enter their mapping details, the information has been recorded; they will not need to start again. She says that we have always maintained that the new CAP is too complex to be processed on paper alone and needs a computer. That remains the position. As I said in my opening statement, that is why we will still use the core of the system to process the data. We have, for example, coefficients on the areas farmers have of broad beans, leguminous vegetables, hedges and so on. It is complex, and that is why we are not removing a digital approach, but simply having RPA officers enter the information on behalf of the farmer. This is not a paper-only system; it is a paper-assisted system.
	The hon. Lady said that Mr Grimshaw, the chief executive of the RPA, had said that he could not give guarantees about the payment window. Having worked with Mr Grimshaw for 18 months, I can say that he is cautious and he never gives guarantees. In all the time I have known him he has never said anything other than that we will make our payments within the payment
	window. In the past couple of years well over 95% of farmers have been paid on the first day of banking and paid early. I am confident, as I said, that once we have the information in and it has been processed, we will have a system in place that can deal with it.
	The hon. Lady mentioned contingency plans. We have adapted our plans and acted to ensure that farmers can get their applications in time this year. That is the responsible thing to do. It would have been wrong to abandon the system and prematurely abandon attempts to sort out the portal, particularly the part that deals with land mapping. We have acted in time to ensure that farmers can get their applications in place, and the steps that we have taken have been welcomed by the farming industry.

James Gray: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who carried out fantastic work in turning around the mess that he inherited in the Department and sorting this out. Will my hon. Friend help me with one detail? The mapping that we are talking about is often very detailed—an electric fence here, a bit of undergrowth there. Would it be possible to pay farmers on account as partial payment this year, with the amounts being adjusted in subsequent years’ payments?

George Eustice: Provided an application is received by the deadline, there is provision in the EU regulations for it to be amended for a period of weeks after that. My hon. Friend’s suggestion of a payment on account while an application has not been received would not fit within the EU regulations, but we have made progress in getting that deadline extended to 15 June, and I have asked the RPA to take a sympathetic view towards farmers who are struggling to get their application in and who may want to amend those details after their form has been submitted.

Stephen McCabe: When the Paymaster General boasted to the public services 2030 conference just 20 days ago that under this Administration the words “Government” and “IT” no longer induce visions of failed IT projects, is it safe to assume that he did not know about this situation?

George Eustice: As I pointed out, we have not abandoned anything. The core of the system is working and will still be used. What we are doing is ensuring that the information provided, in many cases on paper, to the RPA will be entered by digitisers working for the RPA, but it will still go into an electronic system.

Anne McIntosh: Does my hon. Friend regret the Department saying that there was no need for a contingency plan? Will he reassure the House that there cannot be a digital-only system where farmers do not have access to broadband? What are the Government doing to speed up the situation for farmers living in areas with less than 20% and sometimes less than 40% coverage by broadband to ensure that the core system will work next year, as we were assured by the RPA in the Select Committee that the system had been tried and tested across the European Union? Will he confirm that the extension has been agreed for payments to be entered by 15 June?

George Eustice: I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that our plans have always been adaptable. We have always had the ability to change plans and our priority is to ensure that every farmer can get their application in by the deadline. That is why we announced what we did last week. It is not necessary to announce one’s contingency plans until one is ready to use them. That does not mean that we had not had thought about this and that we did not have the ability to keep those plans adaptable.
	On my hon. Friend’s wider point about an internet-only or digital-only application, we have 50 digital support centres that will help farmers to do this, and we are setting up help centres in farmers markets and everywhere we can to ensure that they are able to get their application in on time. We have ensured as well that the system can work at relatively low broadband speeds, so I believe we have addressed the issues that she raised, but in the short term farmers can submit their application this year in paper-based form.

Barry Sheerman: Why is it that every time this Government mess things up they send a junior Minister to the Dispatch Box—the Secretary of State is nowhere to be seen—to blame someone else? I happen to be an avid fan of the BBC’s “Farming Today”—almost as avid a fan as I am of Clare Balding’s “Ramblings”, as those who follow me on Twitter will know—and the fact is that had “Farming Today” not exposed the deep concern in the farming community about this mess, we would not have had this urgent question today.

George Eustice: That is simply not true. We made our decision when we realised that a software update the weekend before last had not worked as we had hoped. It had nothing to do with any media coverage; the media have told us nothing that we were not already aware of. The Secretary of State and I work as a team, so I am here today and she will be appearing before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee tomorrow. We have been working closely together on this and both regularly meet the RPA to discuss these challenges.

Alan Beith: I remind my hon. Friend that until the coalition Government sorted out earlier problems at the RPA, I was having to deal with hundreds of cases of farmers in my constituency who were affected and make representations on their behalf. Has he noted the fact that we will soon be in a six-week election period during which none of us, whether or not we are standing for re-election, will have the status of a Member of Parliament, so he is likely to receive representations during that period from extremely worried farmers?

George Eustice: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that although we will all cease to be Members of Parliament next Monday, I will remain the farming Minister and the Secretary of State will remain the Secretary of State until a new Government are formed, and I can reassure him that I will be having regular telephone conferences with the RPA and attending meetings to discuss and monitor the situation. We will keep a very close eye on this indeed.

Andrew Gwynne: I assume that departmental officials produced a risk assessment for Ministers when the move to this system was proposed, so can the Minister today advise the House on what he thinks are the projected costs to be incurred by DEFRA and the RPA, and indeed by farmers and landholders, as a result of this mess?

George Eustice: It is a matter of record that the project is intended to cost in the region of £154 million. All such projects are monitored by the Major Projects Authority within the Cabinet Office.

Nick Herbert: The important thing is that farmers can submit their claims on time and that the Government have rightly taken action to enable them to do so. In learning the lessons, will my hon. Friend recall that a decade ago only 15% of farmers were being paid on time by the Rural Payments Agency? Under this Government, that figure is now 98%, so he should take no lessons from the Labour party.

George Eustice: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Labour party, when in government, allowed chaos to continue year after year. We have acted swiftly to ensure that farmers can get their applications in on time this year.

Jim Shannon: Obviously there are difficulties with payments across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss these matters with his counterpart in the Northern Ireland Assembly, for example, and what discussions has he had with the farming unions, which might be able to indicate the best way to ensure that payments are made on time?

George Eustice: On the latter point, all farming unions and representatives and agricultural consultants have welcomed the steps we have taken, because they want to ensure that they can get their applications in on time. I discussed the matter with some colleagues from the devolved Administrations at the European Council last week, and I can confirm that they are all relieved that the Commission has extended the deadline.

Sheryll Murray: Can my hon. Friend reassure farmers in the remote parts of my constituency by confirming that they will get the support they need, whether on paper or through access to online services, to avoid the disaster they faced under the system introduced by the previous Government?

George Eustice: As my hon. Friend says, we have acted swiftly to ensure that we can send maps and paper applications to ensure that all farmers can get their applications in on time. We have a network of 50 digital support centres to help farmers with the registration process, because we still want them to register with the online system.

Alan Haselhurst: Amid all the arguments, is not it simply vital to recognise that the important thing is that farmers get the money that is due to them when they need it? Echoing the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), there is the consolatory thought that that will allow broadband roll-out to catch up.

George Eustice: As my right hon. Friend knows, this Government have spent over £700 million on rural broadband, and we are still looking at other options to reach the remaining 5% who still need it. He makes a good point. The focus for me this year is to ensure that farmers can get their applications in on time, which is why we have taken action. Unlike the Labour party, which let chaos continue for years, we acted swiftly to ensure that we could deal with the problem as soon as it was identified.

Richard Drax: I welcome the extension of the deadline to 15 June. However, bearing in mind that too often deadlines are not met, can the Minister reassure me that our farmers will not be fined if they do not meet the deadline and that, whatever happens, the situation will be resolved before anyone talks about being fined, or of the country being fined, and will the European Union fine us if we do not meet certain deadlines?

George Eustice: As my hon. Friend might know, the deadline of 15 May is written in EU regulations and the Commission has agreed to extend it to 15 June. Under the regulations, farmers are given a period of 21 days during which a late application can be accepted. Until last week it was not clear whether the Commission would agree to an extension, although it had indicated that it might, so our plans were made on the basis that we would be aiming to meet the deadline of 15 May. Having that additional month gives us some more leeway, which is obviously welcome.

Andrew Rosindell: Does the Minister agree that the over-complicated CAP system demonstrates that this can affect all member states in a very detrimental way? Is that something that we should be renegotiating as part of our new deal with the European Union?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are already in discussions with Commissioner Hogan about the interpretation of existing regulations for next year to ensure that we can get some simplification. In the mid-term review we will be pressing for further simplification of the greening rules. For the new CAP, which will take effect post 2020, we are already looking at radical reform to make it simpler and make more common sense.

Bill Wiggin: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Farmers understand better than anybody that things can go wrong, but what they cannot tolerate is damage to their business. Can the Minister give me a categorical assurance that if mistakes are made on these forms, the farmers will be corrected, not punished?

George Eustice: I have had that conversation with the RPA. One of my jobs as Farming Minister is to sign off some of the appeals that reach the final process, and I can tell my hon. Friend that I am very challenging on those and have asked the RPA to adopt the most sympathetic approach possible. All information that farmers provide on paper will ultimately be entered by digitisers working for the RPA, and they will carry out checks to ensure that the forms they are entering reflect what farmers intended to put on them.

Mark Spencer: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the Minister on taking decisive action and avoiding the disaster that the previous Government oversaw in 2006-07, when only 15% of farmers were paid on time. I congratulate him on listening to the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association and other groups that have made representations and on making sure that we find a system that operates and allows farmers to be paid.

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes a good point; the Labour party did not grip the problems with the RPA, so there was over £600 million of disallowance and farmers were often paid over a year late—as he said, only 15% were paid on time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister. At least farmers now have certainty and know that they can apply and that they will receive their payments, but can he give an utmost assurance that he will do everything he can to ensure that this delay in applications will not result in any delay in payments?

George Eustice: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will be seeking to ensure that the claims are processed as quickly as possible and paid as speedily as we have demonstrated our ability to do in recent years.

Steve Brine: As the Minister knows, all that farmers in my constituency want is to get their application in on time and to get paid on time so that they can get on with running their business. Is he concerned about errors made this year and the ensuing penalties that we have heard about from other Members? Will farmers still be able to use the online system, or just agents, given that not all farmers have the use of agents?

George Eustice: We are giving some of the larger agents, representing just short of 20,000 farmers, access to the online system. We will not be able to give that access to all agents because of the training required and the time scale needed to enable them to use it. All farmers must still register online, and they will be able to download maps. Those who have simple claims will be able to sign a declaration to say that their land use has not changed and is still simple, such as permanent pasture. I take on board my hon. Friend’s point about errors. As I said, I have been pressing the RPA to take the most generous possible interpretation of the EU regulations. The regulations are clear that where an error is not the farmer’s fault, no penalty can be levelled against them.

Stephen Barclay: Before he steps down from the House very shortly, I join colleagues in paying tribute to the work of my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), not only for his work in clearing up the mess that we inherited with the RPA but his wider work on behalf of farmers.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the 15 digital centres that are going to provide assistance. Will he update the House on what additional resource allocation will be put in place to help with the bureaucracy and the difficult conversations that farmers may have with helplines?

George Eustice: Yes. We have started to treat these digital centres as drop-in centres so that farmers can drop in on them without an appointment. During this crucial period, we are redeploying staff from DEFRA to the RPA to ensure that the helpline and the digital support centres are fully manned and have the capacity to cope with anything thrown at them.

Falkland Islands Defence Review

Michael Fallon: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Falkland Islands defence review.
	Safeguarding our citizens and their way of life remains the most important responsibility of Government and of the Ministry of Defence. In March 2013, the Falkland Islands referendum reaffirmed the islanders’ overwhelming wish to remain British. Of the 92% who voted, 99.8% voted in favour of maintaining their political status as an overseas territory of the United Kingdom. We will always defend the right of the Falkland islanders to determine their own political future.
	The Ministry of Defence retains responsibility for the external defence and security of British interests in the South Atlantic, and, to that end, undertakes regular assessments to ensure that we have in place the appropriate defensive capability. In autumn 2013, my predecessor asked officials to undertake a thorough review of the forces we hold on the Falkland Islands and our contingency plans for their defence. The objective was to ensure that our enduring commitment to the defence of the islands is sustained effectively. That review has now been completed.
	The review’s conclusions remain operationally sensitive in the light of potential threats, and I hope the House will understand that I cannot disclose much of the detail. However, I can tell the House that we have updated our assessment of any threat to the islands. This includes a consideration of the changes that may arise from the islanders’ plans to develop their economy, including the potential for development of an oil and gas industry. We continue to discuss these issues with the Falkland Islands Government.
	I have endorsed the assessment of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Commander of Joint Forces Command that the current military presence is broadly proportionate to the threats and risks that we face. Our forces in the South Atlantic are entirely defensive, and are at the level required to ensure the defence of the Falkland Islands against any potential threat. However, I have also agreed a number of measures designed to ensure our resilience for the short, medium and longer term. Those measures will include the return of military support helicopters, which were removed in 2006 to support operations in Afghanistan. On current plans, this will involve the deployment of two Chinooks, which will be operational by the middle of next year. This is a significant capability that will provide reactive, 24/7 tactical mobility in order to allow a swift and decisive response to any emerging incidents. The helicopters will also bring a heavy-lift capability and enhance the training opportunities available to the resident infantry company.
	We also have plans in place to deliver enhanced operational communications for the headquarters at Mount Pleasant to better enable the sharing of real-time operational data. I can confirm that we will be renewing the ground-based air defence system when Rapier comes out of service at around the end of the decade. We will maintain our commitment to provide a Falkland Islands patrol vessel, currently HMS Clyde. In addition, we intend to carry out a number of projects to replace some of the ageing infrastructure—for example, the refurbishment of Mare harbour and the replacement of
	the existing power generation systems at Mount Pleasant airfield. A major modernisation of the fuels infrastructure is under way and now nearing completion. In total, we expect to invest up to £180 million in improving and modernising our infrastructure on the islands over the next 10 years.
	In addition to the operational improvements I have mentioned, we are taking action to improve the quality of life of those who serve in the Falklands, including planned improvements to accommodation and a new primary school. Although there will be some changes in personnel numbers as the Sea King helicopters are withdrawn and the Chinook force stands up, I have decided that for the foreseeable future we will keep our numbers at around their current levels of about 1,200 personnel, military and civilian. I know the House will want to join me in taking this opportunity to pay tribute to our brave men and women, military and civilian, who leave behind their families and friends for months or years at a time in order to ensure the right of the Falkland islanders to remain British. We will always remember the bravery of the 255 British servicemen who gave their lives for that cause.
	I am aware of the close interest that the Defence Committee takes in the Falkland Islands, and of the Committee’s most recent visit there earlier this year. I am grateful for its insights, some of which echo the findings of the review. I wrote earlier today to the Chairman of the Committee.
	The review we have undertaken confirms our commitment to the Falkland Islands. We will continue to defend the right of the Falkland islanders to determine their future and maintain their way of life against whatever threats may arise. The review ensures that we will continue to have the right mix of people, equipment and infrastructure to deliver that commitment in the years ahead. The Government are not complacent and we will continue to remain vigilant. However, on the basis of the review and the follow-on measures that I have established, I am satisfied that the Government can be confident in their continued ability to defend the South Atlantic islands. I commend this statement to the House.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it.
	Let me state at the outset that it is right, on occasions such as this, once again to remember and pay tribute to the courage of the men and women of the armed forces in retaking the Falklands in 1982—in particular, the 255 Britons who made the ultimate sacrifice, and the hundreds of service personnel who were injured, and their families.
	We should also remember, as the Secretary of State said, that the views of the Falkland islanders are firmly on the record. Does he agree that the recent referendum was a democratic process overseen by international observers that has again made it clear that the islanders wish to remain British? Our position is clear: the only people to determine the future of the Falkland Islands are the Falkland islanders themselves.
	The Government are therefore right in their vow to remain vigilant and committed to the protection of the Falkland islanders at all times. We support the current deployment of assets—Typhoon combat aircraft, Rapier
	surface-to-air missiles, and about 1,200 troops permanently stationed on the Falklands, supported by visiting Royal Navy warships and attack submarines—as a realistic deterrent to any potential threat to the islands.
	However, is it not the case that that position should be continuously reviewed and that the Government should remain constantly vigilant for any emerging threats?
	For some years, Argentina has been trying to replace its antiquated and increasingly unserviceable fighter fleets with a newer and more capable air frame. Will the Secretary of State therefore say a little more about Russia’s involvement and what conversations he has had with our allies about its role in the region? Will he share his assessment of the actual threat facing the Falklands at the moment and whether it has increased in recent months?
	How will the measures that the Secretary of State has announced today be funded? In the context of the spending plan set out in last year’s spending review, it became clear that the Ministry of Defence budget would come under severe pressure and the Chancellor’s Budget did nothing to dispel those concerns, so how will this ongoing commitment be met?
	Will the Secretary of State say more about why it was that certain parts of the media were this morning reporting greater number of troops, yet he has made it clear in his statement that the number will remain at about its current level?
	How soon will the missile system be upgraded? Can the Secretary of State guarantee that there will not be any capability gaps between the end of the Rapier and the commencement of the new system? Can he also reassure the House that we have the appropriate number of Typhoons deployed in the Falklands? Is he satisfied that there is an appropriate level of intelligence sharing to ensure that we are able to deploy all our assets effectively? Will the Secretary of State say more about the time scale for modernising the infrastructure of the Falklands, including the harbour?
	The involvement of Russia is clearly a worry, and the deterrent of enhanced military capabilities is to be welcomed, but surely we can all agree that the best way forward is diplomacy. What diplomatic activity is taking place, and what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Foreign Secretary?
	Finally, is this not the clearest indication that we need an open debate about the defence and security challenges facing the UK and that the next strategic defence and security review needs to be strategically driven, equipping our armed forces for the challenges of an increasingly unstable and dangerous world, as the Defence Committee has said today?
	The will of the people of the Falkland Islands—their right to self-determination, expressed in the recent referendum—must be respected, and Argentina’s transition to democracy should give us some confidence that that will be the case. However, we believe it is prudent to take the measures outlined by the Secretary of State as a proportionate response to the current threat. We believe that these measures should command the support of Members on both sides of the House.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his comments and for his broad welcome for the review’s conclusions. I agree with him about the
	importance of the referendum and its verification and the overwhelming result showing that the islanders want to remain British.
	The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions, including about how often we conduct such a review. The last review was conducted in 2008 and this review was set in train in 2013, which is about right as an interval: we should look at the issue ever four or five years.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the potential involvement of Russia and press speculation. I am not responsible for speculation in the newspapers about either Russia or, indeed, troop numbers. So far as the threat is concerned, I re-emphasise that the principal threat to the islands remains the unjustified claim of Argentina to ownership of them.
	On the budget, I made it clear that the expenditure is a 10-year programme: there will be expenditure of £180 million over the next 10 years. On Rapier, we expect it to go out of service in about 2019 or 2020, and there will be no gap before we introduce its replacement.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about diplomatic discussions with Argentina. He will have noticed the presence on the Front Bench of my colleagues from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who are always ready to talk to Argentina. However, if the discussions are to be about the future of the Falkland Islands, it is very important that representatives of the Falklands Islands Government are present in the room when they take place.

Rory Stewart: On behalf of the Defence Committee, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement on the Falkland Islands. May I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who led the Committee’s trip to the Falkland Islands, and thank the Secretary of State for taking on board their recommendations?

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Defence Committee and I am particularly grateful to those two members of his Committee for undertaking that particular journey. It is not especially easy to visit the Falkland Islands at any time and it obviously involves a commitment of a number of days. We have, of course, reflected on the recommendations my hon. Friend set out in his letter to me.

Derek Twigg: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and his comments about the right to self-determination for the Falkland islanders. It is very important that we emphasise that. On the £180 million that will be spent, when will the refurbishment of the harbour start and finish?

Michael Fallon: The hon. Gentleman plays a key role on the all-party group on the Falkland Islands and I appreciate the welcome he has given to our findings. The overall programme of modernisation and improvements, which, as I have said, will cost £180 million, will take place over 10 years, but I will get back to the hon. Gentleman with the specific dates of the Mare harbour modernisation.

Nick Harvey: May I welcome the statement and endorse the Government’s emphasis on prevention rather than cure, which is surely the right approach? The Secretary of State will be aware of a great deal of speculation about a renewed aerial threat from Argentina in the light of Russian involvement, as referred to by the shadow Defence Secretary. Is he confident that we have enough air defence assets, so that if that did begin to materialise as a tangible threat we would be able to sustain a higher level of air defence over the longer term?

Michael Fallon: I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend, who has served in the Ministry of Defence. Unlike the situation in 1982, we have the airfield, modern Typhoons are deployed there, anti-aircraft systems are in place and we are able, through the airfield, to deploy other aircraft relatively quickly, if necessary.

Angus Robertson: This is the first opportunity for us all to put on record our condolences to everybody who has been caught up in the terrible plane crash in France. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would like our thoughts to be sent to the families of the many people who have died today.
	I agree with the Secretary of State about the importance of the right to self-determination and I join him in paying tribute to all those who served in the Falkland Islands, including my colleague Keith Brown, the Scottish veterans Minister, who fought in the Falklands war as a Royal Marine. The UK is the only maritime power without maritime patrol aircraft, which is relevant for territorial home defence and for overseas territories such as the Falklands. Does the Secretary of State agree that MPA should be procured as quickly as possible and enter service as a priority?

Michael Fallon: I am sure the whole House will echo the sympathy the hon. Gentleman has offered to those tragically involved in this morning’s Airbus crash.
	On self-determination, as I have said, 99% of the islanders voted yes in the referendum, which is a slightly higher proportion than those who voted yes in the more recent referendum in Scotland. It is probably worth bearing that in mind. On maritime patrol capability, MPA is not the only way of securing some of the necessary surveillance. The previous Government were not able to bring that capability to fruition with the development of the Nimrod aircraft. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the plane has never actually flown and it was massively over budget and years over time. We will have an opportunity to return to the issue in the SDSR, which will be carried out after the election.

Gerald Howarth: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which I hope will leave the Argentine Government in absolutely no doubt whatsoever of the determination of the United Kingdom, represented by Members throughout this House, to defend the Falkland Islands from any aggression from Argentina or anywhere else. Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement illustrates a wide range of military commitments to which the United Kingdom is party, and that those commitments need to be properly resourced, which means that we need to spend at least—possibly more than—2% of GDP on our defence budget?

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, such a degree of commitment and deployment of troops and aircraft would not be necessary if we did not have this continuing intimidation from Argentina. If the Argentine Government were able to accept the democratic wishes of the islanders to remain British, none of this would be necessary.
	So far as resources generally are concerned, I know my hon. Friend understands that we are able to commit our troops, planes and ships around the globe within the budget we have at the moment. I note what he says about the 2%, and I know that he will join me in being pleased that we are meeting the NATO target this year and that we will go on meeting it next year.

Gisela Stuart: The Secretary of State said that the principal threat to the Falkland Islands remains from Argentina. Will he say a little more about the role that Russia seems to be playing? If the stories about the leasing of long-range bombers in exchange for beef are true, surely that must feed into a strategic review of the defence of the Falklands more prominently than it seems to be doing at the moment.

Michael Fallon: I have read the same reports as the hon. Lady. I do not think it would be right for me to speculate further on the nature of any particular arrangement between the Governments of Russia and the Argentine. Our job is to make sure that the islands are properly defended and to continue to respect the right of the islanders to determine their own future, and that is what we will do.

Bob Stewart: If an Argentine Government were foolish enough to give instructions to a military officer to invade the Falklands—they had better get the message that that would be very foolish— Mount Pleasant airfield and Mare harbour would be vital ground. May I suggest—I am not asking a question, but making a statement with which I hope the Defence Secretary will agree—that the Falkland Islands Government and the Governor are also vital ground, and should be protected as well?

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that counts as a question. The hon. Gentleman is being too hard on himself.

Michael Fallon: I sense that my hon. Friend is inviting me to agree with him, and I do agree with him. The Governor and the Falkland Islands Government are a key part of the democracy that is the Falkland Islands, and a key part of the Falkland islanders’ ability to determine their own future, as they have just done.

James Gray: I warmly welcome the strength of the Secretary of State’s commitment, including in answering many of the points made by the Select Committee. Incidentally, may we in passing pay tribute to our Clerk, Mr Ian Thomson, who was badly injured during the trip to Argentina?
	Has the Secretary of State given any thought to a gap in our capability that is coming up, namely the withdrawal of the Royal Mail steamer St Helena next year? It currently supplies an essential link between the Falklands and St Helena, as well as to Ascension Island. What thought has he given to replacing that important capability?

Michael Fallon: We would certainly like more air links to the Falklands. I shall obviously continue to discuss with my hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office what other opportunities or potential there is for different services to other territories to be jointly linked up.

Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State referred in a previous answer to the international context. Will he tell us what discussions the Government have recently had with Latin American countries and the United States about these issues, given the unwillingness of the US to support Britain with diplomacy in the past?

Michael Fallon: I am sure that Governments across the region have noted the results of the recent referendum in the Falkland Islands, and that they would respect the right of the Falkland islanders to determine their future. We do have discussions with other Governments in southern and Latin America. I very recently met the Foreign Minister of Brazil, and I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that this subject did not come up.

Julian Lewis: The size of the Royal Navy has greatly diminished since 1982. Does the Secretary of State agree that countries such as Russia and Argentina tend to respond to the signals we send them? Would it not send a terrible signal to the Argentine Government if we failed to give a commitment to continue to spend at least the NATO-recommended minimum of 2% of GDP on defence throughout the lifetime of the next Parliament?

Michael Fallon: I hope the signal that will go out from the House today—from both sides of the House—will be the signal to the islanders themselves that this Government are determined to ensure their defence for the short, medium and long term, and will always protect their right to determine their future.
	My right hon. Friend drew attention to the smaller number of ships. He will of course be aware that the ships we have today are much more powerful than some of the earlier platforms. He will know that we are constructing two new aircraft carriers and building altogether seven new hunter-killer submarines, and that the Prime Minister has recently announced the next phase of the construction of the Type 26 frigate fleet on the Clyde.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Defence Secretary not think it a bit odd that he said nothing in his statement about diplomatic initiatives or relations with other countries, and that only in response to questions from Opposition Members has he even conceded that there have been discussions? Will he be more specific: what political, diplomatic and defence discussions has he had with Brazil, Uruguay or Argentina to reduce tensions and stress in the area, rather than proposing to spend £180 million?

Michael Fallon: As I have told the House, we have close and warm relations with other countries in the region. As I said, I have recently met the Foreign Minister from Brazil, and I and my colleagues continue to meet Ministers from other Governments. There is a standing invitation from the Falkland Islands Government
	to other Governments in the region to visit the islands for themselves and to understand the islanders’ wish to remain British.

Mark Menzies: Typhoon aircraft, which have been mentioned, are built in Warton in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State make sure that, if required, we can send more Typhoons to keep the skies above the Falkland Islands safe?

Michael Fallon: The very direct answer to my hon. Friend is yes. There are more Typhoons available. If more are needed for the defence of the islands, we are ready to send them, and we have Mount Pleasant airfield to receive them there.

Gregory Campbell: In his statement, the Secretary of State said that our military presence is broadly proportionate to the threats and risks we face. What flexibility is there in our defence preparations for any potential hardening of attitude by Argentina, either unilaterally or with others?

Michael Fallon: We have a number of contingency plans, which we continue to refresh, to deal with any increase in the threat level. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not able to spell them out to the House in public session, but I assure him that those contingency plans exist. We take them out every so often to ensure that they are appropriate to the existing level of threat.

Bob Russell: As has been mentioned, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and I visited the Falklands at the end of January, and our report was sent by the Defence Committee to the Ministry of Defence. For security reasons, I cannot comment on most of our recommendations, but I draw the House’s attention to the £10 million saved by the Royal Engineers with the new accommodation for personnel that they are building at a radar head we visited. May I urge the Secretary of State to use £1 million or so of that saving to prevent false economy savings and ensure that Mare harbour is fit for purpose and compliant with international maritime regulations?

Michael Fallon: I referred specifically to the refurbishment of Mare harbour. I am able to tell my hon. Friend, and the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who also asked about this issue, that the programme to develop Mare harbour is expected to be complete by the end of 2017.

Yvonne Fovargue: The Secretary of State has given assurances that there will be no capability gap between the end of Rapier and the commencement of the new system. What measures are in place to ensure that that is the case?

Michael Fallon: We have started to place the first contracts for the replacement of the Rapier missile to ensure that there is no gap. The hon. Lady raises an
	important point. There must be no gap between taking one system out of service and introducing the next. There will be no gap.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more far-reaching geopolitical issue of the possible involvement of Russia shows why this country must maintain its strong defence force and maintain and renew Trident to ensure that there is a strong deterrent for any world power that may be thinking of getting involved in these things?

Michael Fallon: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are committed to renewing our independent nuclear deterrent. He will recall that this House voted by a majority of 329 as recently as January in favour of renewing our independent nuclear deterrent, with only a handful of Members opposing it. We are committed to that and to maintaining strong defences.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State for Defence knows that I am concerned about the run-down of the UK’s defence forces. However, we are a mature parliamentary democracy, so I hope that the whiff of gunpowder and the sound of sabre-rattling that we have had this morning—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I am sorry, but I was in Argentina recently and the people of Argentina are a very fine people. I do not believe that they are looking for conflict. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) mentioned, we should be talking to the Government of Argentina at the most senior diplomatic level, rather than rushing to make precipitous decisions.

Michael Fallon: Let me say as gently as I can to the hon. Gentleman that we have absolutely no quarrel with the people of Argentina—of course not. As he knows, we had to cope in 1982 with the decision of the junta in Argentina to invade the islands. He talks of our responsibility as a mature democracy. It is surely our responsibility to reflect the democratic wishes of the islanders. It is their right to determine their own future and to remain British. Of course, we also want to continue to talk to the Argentine Government about many other matters that lie between us, including developing a stronger commercial relationship.

Caroline Dinenage: Gosport is the proud home of the Falklands Veterans Foundation. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is right to reassure those proud, brave men, some of whom still bear the scars of the conflict, that we will always fight to defend their legacy, which is the sovereignty of the islands?

Michael Fallon: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right to remind us that the sacrifice of those who died to fight for the freedom of the Falkland islanders and their right to determine their own future should never be forgotten by the British people or by this House.

Angela Smith: May I return to the point about troop numbers? Will the Secretary of State explain why the media felt able to report this morning that there would be a greater number of troops, when in his statement he made it clear that they would remain at around their current level?

Michael Fallon: I am not responsible for speculation in the media. As the hon. Lady correctly said, I have decided that the current level of around 1,200 military and civilian personnel is about right. The announcement that I have made this afternoon is about the return of the helicopters and a programme of improvements, including the replacement of the Rapier air defence system, of around £180 million over the next 10 years. I hope that sends a signal of reassurance to the islanders.

Bill Wiggin: I was surprised to receive a book from the ambassador of Argentina explaining that the Falkland islanders should not have the right to self-determination. The Secretary of State can be assured that he will have the support of Conservative Members for 2% of GDP for defence spending or for whatever it takes to ensure that those people do have the right to self-determination.

Michael Fallon: I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance. Of course, the islanders were present on the islands before Argentina was formed. Their history goes a lot further back. It might be worth his reminding the ambassador of that point when he replies to her to thank her for the book.

Andrew Gwynne: I thank the Defence Secretary for his statement. I reiterate that the Opposition also support the self-determination of the Falkland islanders. Whoever forms the Government after the general election, it is incumbent on them to uphold the basic democratic rights of the people who live on the islands. May I press him further on a point that was made by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State? Does he feel that there is the appropriate level of intelligence gathering to enable him appropriately to deploy the assets as best he can?

Michael Fallon: I am sorry that I am not able to discuss intelligence gathering. That is an important part of our assessment of the threat to the islands and an important part of the islands’ defence, but I am not able to discuss in detail the arrangements for gathering intelligence about the threat. On the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point, it is important that the message goes out from all parts of the House to the islanders—I thank the shadow Secretary of State again for this—that we respect their right to determine their future and that, their having made that decision in the referendum, we will continue to defend the islands.

Richard Drax: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the aim of a deterrent is to have sufficient force to meet any threat? Nothing better exemplifies that point than the Falklands war itself, when the decision to save £16 million by withdrawing HMS Endurance led to a war costing billions of pounds and 255 British personnel.

Michael Fallon: As my hon. Friend may know, there was an inquiry into the causes of the war, which was led by Lord Franks. There has been much discussion since of the precise series of events that led up to the war. That is history. Our job is to ensure that the islands are properly defended. I am confident that, following this
	review, we have the right deployment of troops and the right maritime and air assets in place, ready to be deployed in their defence.

David Davies: I commend my right hon. Friend for his steadfast assurance of the right of the Falkland islanders to self-determination. Will he confirm, in response to other questions that have been raised in this House, that that need not prevent us from continuing to try to improve our diplomatic relationships with all countries in the region?

Michael Fallon: Absolutely; it need not. I know that my hon. Friend has a connection with the Patagonian region of the Argentine. We want to have a warmer and closer relationship with the people of the Argentine and their Government. Nothing in what I have announced today should make that any more difficult. As I have made clear again and again, we have to respect the right of the islanders to determine their own future. They determined it in the referendum, and it is our duty to defend the islands.

Mark Spencer: Does the Secretary of State agree that the economy of the Falkland Islands would benefit from foreign investment, and that foreign investment will be forthcoming only if we deliver a safe and secure long-term state?

Michael Fallon: I agree with my hon. Friend. The islands welcome and are receiving foreign investment, and I hope that the future of the islands is clear beyond doubt, as well as the ability and commitment of our Government to defend them from any threat that might materialise. That is the basis, I hope, for a more stable future for the islands in which a more diversified economy can flourish, including the development of the oil and gas sector.

Andrew Rosindell: The assurances that the Secretary of State has given today to continue to defend the Falkland Islands will be welcomed by everyone on the islands, and they reflect the resolute determination shown by our former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, when she stood at the Dispatch Box 33 years ago to give that same commitment. Does he agree that the threat from Argentina is still very real, and that we must never take down our guard and must always stand up for the freedom of those loyal British subjects of the Falkland Islands?

Michael Fallon: I completely agree that we should not drop our guard, and we are not doing that—if anything, we are reinforcing our guard and the defence of our islands. We have the right to defend the islands, and to defend the right of the islanders to determine their future. This is a defensive arrangement; it is not threatening anybody else.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Mr Speaker, you and the House may be interested to know that I have a plaque on my wall, signed by my great uncle when he was Speaker, commemorating the gift of a silver ashtray from the peoples and Government of the Falklands on the rebuilding of this Chamber after it had been bombed during the war. Does that demonstrate the deep and enduring friendship between
	our two peoples, and does my right hon. Friend’s statement this morning demonstrate to the Russians, Argentines and anyone else that if our interests are threatened throughout the world, we will respond?

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the terms in which he put that declaration, and I hope there is no doubt about our determination to stand up to any kind of intimidation or threat to our territory or the rights of those who want to remain British. I hope the message that will go out from across the House today is that we respect the right of the islanders in the decision they have taken to remain British.

Henry Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to the defence of the self-determination of British overseas territories such as the Falkland Islands. Does that prove that Her Majesty’s Government were right to develop the new airport on Saint Helena as an important air bridge to the south Atlantic?

Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend is right: it was important to take that decision and to reinforce the links between Saint Helena and the United Kingdom. The commitment of expenditure on the Mount Pleasant airfield enables us to reinforce the islands remarkably quickly should any threat materialise.

Cyber-security

Francis Maude: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s national cyber-security programme.
	Every day, the cyber threat is growing and we face ever more sophisticated attacks. According to one survey, 81% of large businesses and 60% of small businesses suffered a breach last year. Back in 2010 the coalition Government identified cyber as one of four tier 1 national security threats, and Britain has been among the fastest adopters of the digital economy. We are a world leader in digital services, which are a key part of our long-term economic plan. We cannot let our economic progress be undermined by those who would do us harm. No national Government can tackle the cyber threat alone, and international collaboration is central to our strategy, as is the closest partnership with the business community.
	In 2011 we published our cyber-security strategy and have committed £860 million of funding over five years to the national cyber-security programme. That is to ensure that Britain remains one of the safest places to do business online. Cyber-security skills are scarce, and collaboration between Government, industry and academia is essential to build the skills and expertise we need.
	Despite the huge budget deficit that we inherited, we have invested in our intelligence agencies and the National Crime Agency to build our capabilities to understand cyber threats and tackle cybercrime. GCHQ—often the object of poorly informed criticism—is home to a hugely impressive and patriotic collection of public servants, and I put on record my appreciation for the dedicated and highly skilled work they do to keep Britain safe.
	We have worked with business to establish the cyber essentials scheme to raise awareness of five basic measures to keep companies safe. That scheme is now mandatory for certain types of Government procurement, and today 88% of FTSE 350 companies have cyber-security firmly on their risk registers. We created the national computer emergency response team—CERT-UK—to respond to major cyber incidents, and it played a significant role in protecting the Commonwealth games and the NATO summit in Wales. Following the Prime Minister’s successful visit to the US, CERT-UK will be leading joint exercising with its American counterpart later this year. The cyber-security information sharing partnership, based within CERT-UK, provides a safe space for businesses and Government to exchange information and develop responses in real time. CiSP now has 914 members and reports on 215,000 abused IP addresses daily.
	Technology moves at an astonishing pace and we cannot stand still. Today I will set out further steps to keep us safe. Our new Cyber First scheme will be an elite development programme for the next generation of UK cyber-security talent. It draws heavily on Israel’s hugely successful Talpiot programme, which I saw first-hand on a visit to Israel in November. Talpiot provides the state of Israel with formidable cyber-security skills, and is also the seedbed for a fertile array of new businesses. Partly as a result, Israel now has more start-ups per capita than any other country.
	Initially we will pilot Cyber First with a few tens of students. Each will receive £4,000 funding per year to study relevant undergraduate courses in science, technology, engineering and maths. They will be required to work during summer vacations or years out, either within Government or in leading UK cyber-security companies. Participation in this elite programme will carry a commitment to work for the Government for at least three years before members start to see their financial support written down. This programme will be a vital pipeline of top-end cyber talent in the service of Britain’s national security.
	Cyber First is the latest in a series of initiatives building cyber skills, including new apprenticeships, and introducing cyber-security to the National Citizen Service and ensuring that it is included in relevant courses leading to computing and digital qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds. We sponsor cyber competitions in schools, as well as technical apprenticeships and PhDs; we are building cyber-security into computer science and computing degrees, and so far we have accredited six master’s degrees in cyber-security, created two new centres of doctoral training, three research institutes and 11 academic centres of excellence in cyber-security research. Two further universities—Kent and Surrey—have today been awarded centre of excellence status in cyber research. I can also announce the funding of three UK-Israel cyber research projects. Similar projects with Singapore will follow later this year, and I look forward to seeing the first cohort of joint UK-US Fulbright cyber-security scholars before too long.
	All that builds on our much broader work to improve cyber skills, which has already seen 40,000 people enrol in the Open University cyber-security open online course. We have made good progress in developing digital and cyber skills more widely across the economy, and I warmly commend the work that my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy has done and continues to do on that.
	For Government services, online safety is central. GOV.UK Verify, funded by the national cyber-security programme, is our world-leading identity assurance programme. I can announce today that we have put in place a new contractual framework for identity providers that will increase choice for citizens who wish to prove their identity online. I will announce shortly the details of the additional identity providers.
	We have to worry about cyber-security because of the growth and development of the internet in the past 20 years. The internet has an amazing power to change people’s lives for the better. Cyber is a huge opportunity, as well as a threat. Britain’s cyber-security sector is worth more than £6 billion a year and employs some 40,000 people. We are on track to double cyber-security exports to £2 billion by next year. Our aim is to increase that to £4 billion by 2020, and we will promote more regional clusters to support more British cyber-businesses. We want Britain to benefit from the best digital economy in the world. Effective cyber-security is central to that success. I commend this statement to the House.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. It is now twice in two days that he has come to the House
	to make a statement. Tomorrow he will make it a hat-trick with his final Cabinet Office Questions. Clearly, he wants to see as much of us all as possible before he retires from this House.
	I pay tribute to the Minister for his work in the past five years as the Minister for the Cabinet Office and in the many years he has served the public as a Member of this House. There are many things on which we disagree, for example how we should use digital government to empower people rather than cutting them off from services, but no one can doubt his dedication to public service. Nor can we doubt the dedication of those who work so hard to protect us, our nation, its citizens and businesses from cyber-attacks. I, too, would like to put on record my praise for the work done by the security services, the police and all civil servants who work in this area. They do a vital job day in, day out to protect our cyber-infrastructure and digital footprints, and I commend their work.
	I am sure the Minister agrees with that sentiment. I hope, therefore, that the Government will clarify how those who protect us in cyberspace will continue to do so when the Chancellor is bent on reducing public sector spending to levels not seen since the 1930s, before there was even an NHS or a GCHQ. It is clear from the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies that, after the Chancellor’s Budget last week, unprotected Departments face huge cuts to meet his spending plans and unfunded tax cuts. The Ministry of Defence, the police and social care services are under threat. Can the Minister confirm whether the budget for cyber-security will be protected, or are we to assume that because the Cabinet Office is an unprotected Department that this will not be the case?
	I welcome the new Cyber First pilot. Indeed, I was privileged to launch the UK’s first MBA in cyber-security with Coventry university. The demand for cyber-security experts is growing at 12 times the rate of the overall job market, so it is vital that we train and equip more people with cyber-skills. Small firms are the victims of three quarters of all successful data breaches and are the most likely to suffer from a lack of cyber-skills. However, just as the Minister came late to the digital inclusion agenda and then chose a strategy that excludes 10% of our fellow citizens, he has come late to—indeed, neglected—cyber-security for small businesses. According to the Institution of Engineering and Technology, half of all small and medium-sized enterprises have not even heard of the Government’s cyber-security efforts. What is the Minister doing to change that and to make small businesses more cyber-aware?
	Crime is changing. It increasingly happens online, but the Government do not have a strategy to tackle it. The cyber-security budget is overwhelmingly going to cyber-security and big businesses, leaving consumers to fend for themselves. The majority of the cyber-security budget goes into the single intelligence account, with the police left a tiny amount to tackle a growing tide of online crime with an overall £2 billion cut in funding. The Home Affairs Committee highlighted the black hole where low-level e-crime is committed with impunity. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the police have the resources they need in this area?
	I welcome the announcement of a new contractual framework for GOV.UK Verify. However, it was only in October that the Government were predicting that hundreds of thousands would be verified by now. In fact, only
	50% of people are successful the first time they use the service. The Minister says that details will be announced “shortly”. Given that there are only a few days left before Parliament is dissolved, will he tell us exactly when he plans to announce the details? Specifically, will it include a public sector provider of identity assurance, so that people can choose a provider they trust?
	Finally, the statement makes no mention whatever of mobile. It has taken the Government five years not to eradicate not spots, and they have ignored the gaping hole in cyber-security which is mobile device security, particularly in the era of “bring your own” device. What is the Minister doing specifically on mobile?
	I could not help but notice that the statement was somewhat light on actual policy announcements. A cynic might think that the Minister was rushing out a half-baked announcement to use up time. It is almost as if the Government are scrambling around for something to say to give the impression that they have made real progress in rising to what is one of the greatest challenges of the digital era and one of the greatest opportunities for UK business. The UK can lead in cyber-security as we do in online commerce, but it will take skills for the many—small businesses and citizens, as well as big businesses—not the few. It will take a Labour Government to ensure we have that.

Francis Maude: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her very warm words at the beginning of her response, which I enormously appreciate. Parting is indeed such sweet sorrow, but there is life beyond.
	I am afraid it tailed off a little bit after that. The hon. Lady talked about cuts and the potential for continued funding for cyber-security in the next Parliament. She made the slightly odd suggestion that the trajectory of public spending would be at a level last seen in the 1930s. A little further research shows that the last time this level of spending was seen was in 1999-2000 under a Labour Government.
	So far as funding for cyber-security is concerned, that will be dealt with in the context of the spending review that will take place after the election, but I do not know anybody who believes there is any possibility that there will not continue to be very significant funding for cyber-security. We are acknowledged across the world as being in the lead in this area. There is always a danger when one says that of being thought to be complacent. We are not remotely complacent. This is a very fast-moving set of threats and we have to move equally fast to keep up with it. We need to be on the case all the time.
	The hon. Lady talked about the resources being devoted to tackling cybercrime. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) who has responsibility for tackling cybercrime is in her place on the Front Bench. She takes this matter immensely seriously. The National Cyber Crime Unit is based in the National Crime Agency. A good proportion of the cyber-security programme is funding for the law enforcement agencies, which do fantastic work. I obviously echo her enthusiastic support for those who work to protect and preserve our national security, and I include in that those in our armed forces active in this field.
	The hon. Lady talked about digital inclusion, which she knows the Government take extremely seriously. We support the huge amount of work being done by businesses, particularly Barclays and other companies, on digital activity to enable people currently excluded to be active online, and that will continue to be the case. She also asked about mobile security on mobile devices, which is obviously a serious matter. So far as the Government are concerned, CESG, part of GCHQ, provides good guidance and is reckoned to be world leading on smart devices.
	So far as citizens and consumers are concerned, she will be aware of our Cyber Streetwise campaign and Get Safe Online, which are about making sure people know the risks. GCHQ estimates that 80% of successful cyber-attacks could be thwarted or mitigated by basic internet hygiene, and for that awareness is important. I am less concerned about whether SMEs are aware of what the Government are doing; I am more concerned that they are aware of what they need to do, which is to take basic steps on internet hygiene.
	There is much more to do, and there will never be any scope for a Government or businesses to rest on their laurels. I found the hon. Lady’s objection that my statement was light on policy slightly startling. Quite rightly, the Government have elevated cyber-security to one of the four tier 1 national security threats, so we take it enormously seriously. At a time when we had to cut public spending, because of the appalling public deficit inherited from the last Government, this was one of the very few areas that we decided was sufficiently important to invest further money in, and we will continue to do that.

Julian Lewis: A number of Governments are known to have invested heavily in what might be termed “offensive cyber”. Given that we must do everything we can to protect our own systems, are there any messages we can send to such Governments about the consequences that would follow for them if they were unwise enough to launch a cyber-attack against this country?

Francis Maude: I am well aware of what my right hon. Friend says, and he is right to raise the matter. Our task is to ensure that our efforts on national security are provided with all the tools necessary for us to protect ourselves and deter attacks.

Jim Shannon: One of the aims of the 2011 cyber-security strategy was to have the UK more resilient to cyber-attacks and able to protect our interests in cyberspace. How well does the Minister feel that this has been achieved, and how does the news that 81% of firms suffered from cyber-attacks and breaches in the last year, as he said in his introduction, fit with that strategy?

Francis Maude: Awareness in the business world is much higher than it was—it was woefully low and remains so in most parts of the world—partly as a result of the Government’s efforts. As a result, many more companies are taking active steps to treat this seriously—not as something to be delegated to the IT department but as a board-level risk to be understood and managed by the board as a major risk to the business. We shall continue to drive home this message.

Robin Walker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this important update. He talked about clusters. He will know that one of the most important cyber-security clusters in the UK is in world-class Worcestershire. One business he has visited there, Titania security, told me it was benefiting from a wide range of Government help, including the apprenticeships scheme, research and development tax credits and help with exporting from UK Trade & Investment. Will he update the House on how his Department could work with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that our cyber-security industry is the most competitive in the world?

Francis Maude: It is very competitive. I know that my hon. Friend has given enormous support to the cyber-cluster in Worcestershire. As a matter of historical accident almost, there are many businesses in Great Malvern. When I visited in 2012, there were 40 or so cyber-companies; there are now more than 80. This is very fast growing. We help cyber-companies with exporting, and many of them are doing it. I visited Titania, in his constituency, and was hugely impressed by how many countries this relatively small company was selling its products to.

Frank Roy: Cyber-security is a reserved matter, but will the Minister update the House on any conversations or meetings he has had with Police Scotland or the Scottish Government on this matter?

Francis Maude: We obviously co-ordinate as much as possible with the Scottish Government—my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for cybercrime could comment separately on any discussions the Home Office has with Police Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is right to imply that these matters require close co-ordination between Governments and law-enforcement agencies not just within the UK but much more widely, because cyber and the internet know no national boundaries.

Alec Shelbrooke: Following on from my right hon. Gentleman’s comments about GCHQ staff, what did he make of the Business Secretary’s comments that The Guardian Snowden publication was entirely correct and courageous, and will he outline his assessment of the effect that has had on the morale of our public servants at GCHQ?

Francis Maude: I happened to be visiting GCHQ shortly after my right hon. Friend made those remarks. The people who work at GCHQ do fantastic work—it is a centre of brilliant expertise and knowledge; they do difficult work away from the public gaze, and any comments that seem to undermine what they do in the service of national security has to be strongly deprecated.

Julian Huppert: The Minister is right to pay tribute to the work of GCHQ and to prioritise cyber-security, which is very important for all of us. He will be aware that a fundamental part of that is good encryption, so will he encourage individuals and companies alike to push ahead with strong end-to-end encryption, wherever possible?

Francis Maude: Encryption is obviously important, but it is for businesses to decide what level of encryption they
	want to operate. These are obviously delicate matters, but there is a lot of technology here, and I am happy to say that Britain is very good at it.

Chloe Smith: It has been an enormous privilege in this Parliament for me to serve with my right hon. Friend in his team at the Cabinet Office doing exactly this work. Will he update the House further on what he continues to do to keep our critical national infrastructure safe?

Francis Maude: I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend both for what she says and for the incredibly important work she did, particularly in taking the message about the need to strengthen cyber-security defences out to the business community, which she did with her characteristic energy and clarity. So far as the critical national infrastructure is concerned, a huge amount of work is already under way to continue to ensure that we understand the vulnerabilities. Obviously, the critical national infrastructure is not primarily owned by the state—it is in private sector hands—so we need to understand the vulnerabilities and work with the owners of that infrastructure to ensure that the defences are as good as they can be.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to meet Training 2000 and me last October to discuss its plans to create an institute for cyber-security in Pendle. Following that meeting, it has followed up the leads he provided, and I am delighted to say that it is now progressing with its ambitious plans to create the institute later this year, to improve local cyber-skills and apprenticeships in the area. Given the importance of this issue to many Lancashire SMEs, what more can his Department do to support such proposals?

Francis Maude: Let me first pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend has done in this area. When I recently visited Pendle, I had the opportunity to discuss the matter with him. There has been no stronger champion of our potential to work with businesses to build the companies, the skills and the kind of centres for training that he mentions. I am confident that he will be in a position to take this work forward over the coming five years.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Paymaster General agree that the excellent news about a new university technical college at Berkeley Green in my constituency, providing skills and training in cyber, is perfectly timely in view of his statement and that it is likely to bring a real benefit to the Government Communications Headquarters?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend is exactly right to draw attention to that. We need to build these skills—and build them early. The kind of college he mentions can play an incredibly important role in that, particularly, as he says, in view of its proximity to Cheltenham and GCHQ. We need to get to children earlier so that we can encourage more of them to specialise in these subjects. Under our Cyber First scheme, which I referred to in my statement, and in pursuit of the most gifted students, we will absolutely look to find really gifted students at a much younger age.

Stephen Mosley: I welcome yesterday’s launch by the Cabinet Office of the report into cyber-insurance, which hopes to make the UK the world capital of cyber-insurance in the marketplace. It will not only give the UK insurance market the leading edge in order to become the world leader, but will encourage our small and medium-sized enterprises to take up cyber-insurance through the terms and conditions of their insurance policy.

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to this. We have, I think, got ahead of the game by commissioning the work we have done jointly with the insurance industry. Cyber-insurance is a market in its infancy. Many businesses do not know whether they are covered for damage and loss caused by cyber-attacks. The fact that Britain excels in the insurance market—London is the world’s centre of insurance—and that Britain is very good at cyber-security will enable us to become world leaders in this important area. The sophisticated pricing of cyber-risk will be a huge stimulus, particularly to smaller businesses, to ensure that they have done what they can to protect themselves. I welcome the industry’s support, particularly for smaller businesses and SMEs, of the Cyber Essentials scheme as a kitemark for taking the right steps to protect themselves.

Richard Graham: rose—

Eleanor Laing: The prize for patience goes to Mr Richard Graham.

Richard Graham: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I congratulate the Minister for the Cabinet Office on both his statement and his strong commitment to a quiet revolution on our nation’s understanding of, and support for, the cyber-industry. My right hon. Friend knows the important cluster in Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, which now includes the future training centre rightly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). Does my right hon. Friend agree that places such as the new cyber-centre in Gloucester, led by Raytheon with innovative partners employing between 9,000 and 90,000 employees should encourage local universities such as the university of Gloucestershire to play an important role in developing appropriate courses for future skills in this sector?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend is completely right to draw attention to that and to emphasise the need for us to develop these skills early. These are scarce skills at the moment, but they do not need to be. We took steps early in the course of the coalition Government to start the process of building skills, and the kind of developments to which my hon. Friend refers are a crucial part of that.

Point of Order

Mary Macleod: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you clarify the process that exists for a situation in which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) refuses to apologise to the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) for quoting someone who referred to her by saying, “Lynch the bastard”. If the hon. Gentleman did not agree with remarks made by others that were in effect inciting violence against a female MP, why on earth did he repeat them to another audience? I had hoped that he would apologise before this House dissolves, but no apology has been forthcoming.

Eleanor Laing: I call Mr John McDonnell to respond to that point of order.

John McDonnell: This has been raised before, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it was accepted by the House that I would in no way ever encourage violence or support violence against an hon. Member— [Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order.

John McDonnell: I therefore have nothing to apologise for. If a constituent shouts something out to an MP, that is a matter for the constituent. This is about the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) trying to make herself into a victim over this issue. The real victims are people such as David Clapson who starved to death as a result of—

Eleanor Laing: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is responding to a point of order, I must insist that he sticks only to that point of order. Has he finished his response to this point of order? He may do so.

John McDonnell: I was simply putting it in the context of the suffering that has been caused by the right hon. Member for Wirral West—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I have said to the hon. Gentleman that he must limit his remarks to the substance of the point of order. I am allowing him to do so and giving him plenty of opportunity to respond. We do not need the background information—just his response.

John McDonnell: The substance of the matter is that there is nothing to apologise for, and I hope that on 7 May the electorate will remove the stain of inhumanity—

Eleanor Laing: Order. It is not a matter for me to discuss the electorate on 7 May. It is disappointing that a matter such as this should have to come before the House. I thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for giving notice of their intention to be here today to raise this point. Let me repeat what the Deputy Speaker said when the matter was raised in November—that what hon. Members say outside this place is not a matter for the Chair.
	I would, however, strongly clarify—the hon. Lady asked for clarification—that it is incumbent on all Members of this House, either within the Chamber or elsewhere, to act with courtesy to one another and, indeed, to everyone else whom they might encounter. I understand the hon. Lady’s particular concerns about reported comments suggesting violence—whether they were seriously intentioned or not. I am quite certain, and I am sure the whole House will agree, that no hon. Member would wish to be associated with such comments. I urge hon. Members concerned in this matter to consider that apology is not backing down; it is a courteous way of settling a matter. One would hope that hon. Members of this House would wish always to act with such courtesy.

Schools (Opportunity to Study for Qualifications)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Chris Skidmore: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to ensure that pupils in secondary education are guaranteed the opportunity to study for qualifications including triple science GCSEs and all English Baccalaureate GCSE subjects; and for connected purposes.
	The past five years have witnessed a transformation in the uptake of rigorous subjects at GCSE. It cannot be denied that the introduction of the English baccalaureate as a measure of performance has seen the percentage of pupils studying for English, maths, science, a modern foreign language and either history or geography rise from 22% in 2009-10 to 36% in 2013/14—and it is expected to rise above 40% this academic year.
	This is welcome news, for we know that in an increasingly competitive and outward-facing global world, qualifications matter. Even at 14, the choices that a pupil makes in choosing their GCSE options will have a critical impact on their future. Universities now take GCSE results and the subjects studied into close account, while the choice of certain GCSEs can have a limiting effect on a pupil’s ability to study certain subjects at A-level, which in turn can prevent access to the study of these subjects at university. Options at 14 are, in fact, a seismic moment in a pupil’s education, one on which their entire academic future and career may depend.
	Given how important the choice of GCSEs has become, and given the weight that is placed on them, one would expect that all pupils, regardless of where they were born, would—in today’s world—be given equal opportunities to study for qualifications that would decide their own future career paths. If pupils’ options are to be meaningful, they must also be given an equal and fair choice of subjects that is open to all. It is unacceptable that the subject choices and, as a result, the aspirations of many pupils are still being capped by a lack of subject provision in the schools that they attend. For many pupils, GCSE choices are little more than a modern-day Hobson’s choice: they are forced either to study certain subjects that their schools have deemed appropriate, or to study nothing at all.
	That is particularly true of the uptake of sciences at GCSE. For too long, a great educational divide existed between schools that offered only what was then called double science, and schools that gave their pupils a chance to study the three separate sciences—biology, chemistry and physics. For too long, that chance was mostly the preserve of pupils who were educated in the private or selective sectors, while those attending comprehensive schools were forced to accept second best. Over the past 10 years, rapid progress has been made in the raising of aspirations in every school. In 2004, fewer than 40% of secondary schools offered the three separate sciences, or triple science, at GCSE, whereas recently 87.5% of schools entered pupils for triple science. In 2010, the figure was 78.2%.
	Important work has been undertaken through schemes such as the triple science support programme, managed by myScience, which has helped 1,385 schools to increase
	provision of the three sciences. Following the creation of a national network of science learning centres which prepare teachers and technicians to meet the challenge of providing the delivery of triple science, the number of pupils in state-funded schools taking triple science has increased by more than 45,500 since 2010. Across the country, there have been individual success stories of schools that have transformed their science provision. John Smeaton Academy, for instance, initially only allowed its pupils to study science through a BTEC course, but some are now studying three separate sciences.
	Last month, however, the publication of the Open Public Services Network’s “Lack of Options” report underlined the challenge that we still face in aiming to ensure that all pupils, regardless of where they live or what school they attend, are given equal opportunities to study for the qualifications that may secure their future. The report found that in just 41 of 149 local authorities did every school give pupils a chance to study the three separate sciences. The variation was stark: in Sutton, 46% of pupils had chosen to enter triple science GCSE, compared with just 14% in Hull and a pitiful 11% in Knowsley, where, worryingly, only 51% of pupils took any kind of science GCSE
	Although the report’s conclusions suggested that there was a strong correlation between areas of deprivation and the provision of triple science GCSE, it is important to note that a pupil’s own economic family background did not necessarily act as a barrier to attainment. In Hammersmith and Fulham, the proportion of pupils who were eligible for free school meals was similar to that in Knowsley—47%, compared to 51%—but 37% of pupils were entered for triple science, compared to 11% in Knowsley. The real difference between those two authorities, however, involved the provision of triple science GCSE in schools. In 43% of schools in Knowsley, not a single pupil was entered for triple science GCSE, whereas every school in Hammersmith and Fulham offered the three separate sciences.
	Poverty of aspiration, which lowers horizons and dims lights that should be burning brightly, still reaches into areas of our education system, and into places where education is most needed to transform young lives. We cannot continue to allow generation after generation of pupils to be let down simply because of the accident of where they were born or what school they attend. In Bristol, my own local area, only 23.3% of pupils were entered for triple science GCSE. A quarter of schools did not even offer the subject at GCSE. Every single school did so in South Gloucestershire, North Somerset, and Bath and North East Somerset. That contrast is simply unacceptable.
	As a local MP, like many other Members to whom I have spoken, I have dealt with casework involving this issue. A pupil whose ambition and aspirations were still burning wished to study the three separate sciences at GCSE, with a view to studying medicine at university. She was informed by the school—which called itself a specialist science school—that she would not be able to do so. After her parents visited my surgery, I investigated the case, under the impression that, in 2008, the previous Government’s science and innovation investment framework had entitled all pupils who achieved a level 6 or above at key stage 3 to study triple science at GCSE. When I
	contacted the science, engineering and design and technology team at the Department for Education, I was informed that that was not the case, and that the promise that had been made back in 2008 was not
	“a legal entitlement. It was a commitment made by the last government but was never made statutory”.
	The Department further explained that there was no legal entitlement for pupils in any maintained school, including the old specialist schools, to study triple science. It was up to the school and the governing body to decide what science qualifications should be offered.
	Regardless of the improvements that have been made throughout the country—and I accept that here have been fantastic improvements—the situation remains the same. Pupils who are trapped in a school that does not offer triple science GCSE will be prevented from studying the subjects that they wish to study, the subjects that could transform their future. Rather than that critical choice being placed in the hands of pupils themselves, allowing them to choose their own destiny, it remains the case that the power to arbitrate over pupils’ lives remains with the schools themselves.
	I propose that the law be changed, so that pupils can be given not only the entitlement that was once promised to them, but what I call a “right to learn”. If a school is unable to offer triple science GCSE for whatever legitimate reason—and I fully understand that the provision of laboratories and specialist science staff is critical—it should have a duty to ensure that pupils are given the chance to study for those GCSEs elsewhere. I hope that such a duty would in itself act as a positive enabling force to help to end the “subject deserts” that are afflicting parts of the country, highlighting the fact that the current situation must change. I hope that it would ensure greater collaboration between schools, driving up further the number of pupils taking triple science GCSE. I have chosen science today because it is a particularly pressing example, but an equal case can be made for other EBacc subjects.
	I hope that in another decade we shall be able to look back—as I have today—to review the progress that schools have made, and to assess the further progress that they must make if we are to ensure that pupils are given the best start in life in an increasingly competitive world. However, I also hope that by then we shall have relegated to history a world in which pupils’ educational chances, and the subjects that are offered to them, depend on the part of the country in which they were born. The fact that pupils are still being denied an opportunity to study for qualifications that are available to others in state-funded schools is unacceptable, and nothing short of educational discrimination. This simple Bill would ensure that, while the fight to reduce inequality of attainment must continue apace, we can at least end the inequality of access and opportunity to study for qualifications that should be available to all.

Fiona Mactaggart: I oppose the Bill because, despite its title, I feel that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) has misunderstood the nature of the risk that is posed to students who need to study specific subjects. In blaming schools and teachers, he has ignored the imminent prospect of the withdrawal of certain modern foreign language A-level subjects.
	Students will have no opportunity to study for A-level qualifications in subjects such as Polish, Punjabi, Bengali and Hebrew, because the A-level examination board—the only board that provides for those subjects—is planning to withdraw the examinations in 2017.
	The Government have failed to do anything to prevent the removal of Polish and Punjabi—the two languages which, after English, are most spoken in this country— from the A-level examination syllabus. In 1998, when such a move was last suggested, Members tabled an early-day motion, and succeeded in preventing Edexcel from ending the A-level examination in Polish. At that time, there were 100 students studying Polish A-level; now there are nearly 10 times as many, but the plan is still to abandon the course.
	When Ofsted last looked at the teaching of modern foreign languages, it produced a report in January 2011 and pointed out that A-level entries in modern languages increased slightly between 2007 and 2010, from 28,377 to 29,836. Since then there has been a depressing decline. Entries for French are down 3,150 to 9,000, and entries for German are down 1,300 to 3,750. There has been a significant increase in the number of students getting qualifications in the minority modern foreign languages, which are the the very languages that will soon be unavailable for examination.
	So what did I do? I wrote to the AQA examination board and Ofqual and they responded. I sent a copy to the Secretary of State for Education, who has not responded. AQA said that
	“government changes to the exam system and qualifications mean that only new GCSEs and A-levels accredited by the exams regulator, Ofqual, can be offered by awarding bodies”.
	In other words, it is pointing to Ofqual.
	It also talks about the specific subjects I have raised:
	“we will be faced with a number of challenges. We know it will become increasingly difficult to recruit sufficient examiners with assessment expertise to set and mark the four skills of reading, writing, speaking and listening.”
	I have spoken to a senior examiner in Polish and she assures me there is no difficulty in finding suitably qualified examiners in that subject, yet AQA is determined to abandon it. It points out that only 983 students were entered in the last year, but it has ignored the fact that the Polish community, which is the biggest driver of the number of A-level entrants, is growing hugely. So this short-sighted policy risks the children of the many thousands of Poles who have settled in Britain in the last years not being able to study the language.
	Let us have a look at what Ofqual says. It says:
	“What is taught in schools up to Key Stage 4 is a matter for Government. After this the offering will be demand led for the exam boards who are free (mostly) to develop qualifications at A level that they wish.”
	I want the Minister on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), to make sure they are not mostly “free” to develop the qualifications they wish. Instead he should insist that they develop the qualifications students need, because if we do not study these modern foreign languages, including
	the languages of the growing markets in south Asia, we will lose important outward-facing opportunities for the British economy.
	Ofqual goes on to say:
	“We at Ofqual do not…seek to limit the curriculum. We do expect any GCSE, AS or A level to be of comparable demand”.
	It is saying that it needs the same number of entrants for each subject, but at the current rate of decline the number of entrants for Polish and French will be very similar very soon, and I imagine that the number of entrants for Polish and German will be almost the same by the time the Polish A-level is abandoned.
	The Government must use their power to direct Ofqual. The Ofqual response says that
	“we here at Ofqual make no judgements on what subjects ought to be taught as part of key stages of the curriculum”.
	Someone needs to take responsibility for making this judgment, because it is clear that there are sufficient examiners. The Polish University Abroad, which is based in London, runs further education courses for BA graduates in teaching Polish as a second language, and it does not expect any shortage of suitably qualified examiners in the near future.
	If the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) had focused his Bill on qualifications that students are prevented from being able to obtain by Government inaction, it could have enabled students to qualify in Polish, in Punjabi, in Hebrew, in Bengali—in all the languages that the examination boards are planning to abandon. If we abandon them, we cannot continue to depend on the fact that English is our greatest export as the reason why our companies can succeed so well. We need to recognise that in order to compete in an increasingly globalised world, Britain needs access to all those languages, and if we just look backwards we will not obtain the wealth our country needs or give children the chance to get an A-level in a subject they will succeed in.
	The hon. Gentleman compared the approaches to learning in Hammersmith and Knowsley. I believe that one of the reasons why London education authorities are doing well in this regard is that London children bring many languages to their schools—languages they are able to be examined in and succeed in. If somebody has access to another language, they have insights that can strengthen all areas of their learning. We are about to deny an entire cohort of children that opportunity to be examined in modern foreign languages, and I wish the hon. Gentleman’s Bill would sort out that problem, rather than the one he has talked about.
	Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Chris Skidmore, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Henry Smith, Neil Carmichael, Andrew Percy, Mr Dominic Raab, Nigel Adams, Mr Henry Bellingham, Richard Fuller, Christopher Pincher and Mrs Cheryl Gillan present the Bill.
	Chris Skidmore accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 194).

Business of the House (24, 25 and 26 March)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the following provisions shall have effect:
	Sittings on 24, 25 and 26 March
	(1) At today’s sitting and the sittings on Wednesday 25 March and Thursday 26 March–
	(a) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply;
	(b) Standing Orders Nos. 83D to 83H and 83I(2), (3) and (6) (conclusion of proceedings etc) shall apply to proceedings to be taken in accordance with this Order, but with the omission of Standing Orders Nos. 83D(2)(c) and 83E(2)(c);
	(c) no notice shall be required of any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown and any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption and shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House;
	(d) no Motion to alter the order in which proceedings on a Bill are taken, to recommit a Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	Tuesday 24 March
	(2) At today’s sitting–
	(a) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Recall of MPs Bill
	shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) three hours after their commencement;
	(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) three hours after their commencement;
	(c) the Lords Amendments to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill shall be considered in the following order: Nos. 34 to 62, 86, 132, 136 to 141, 1 to 33, 63 to 85, 87 to 131, 133 to 135 and 142 to 193;
	(d) proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to approval for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one and a half hours after their commencement;
	(e) proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to the draft Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015 and the Motion in the name of Secretary Chris Grayling relating to the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first of those Motions;
	(f) any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill may be considered forthwith without any further Question being put;
	(g) subject to sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), proceedings on any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already
	concluded) one hour after their commencement.
	(3) The start of any emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held at today’s sitting shall be postponed until the conclusion of the proceedings at that sitting to which this Order applies.
	Wednesday 25 March
	(4) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration, and proceedings on Third Reading on the Finance (No. 2) Bill shall be completed at the sitting on Wednesday 25 March, as follows–
	(a) proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) two hours after their commencement;
	(b) when the Bill has been read a second time, it shall stand committed to a Committee of the whole House and, subject to sub-paragraph (c), the House shall immediately resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Bill;
	(c) where relevant, when the Bill has been read a second time–
	(i) proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed while the Question is put on
	any Procedure Resolution relating to the Bill and, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52(1) (financial resolutions in connection with bills), on any Money Resolution or Ways and Means Resolution relating to the Bill;
	(ii) on the conclusion of proceedings on any Procedure Resolution, Money Resolution or Ways and Means Resolution relating to the Bill, proceedings on the Bill shall be resumed and the House shall immediately resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Bill;
	(d) proceedings in the Committee of the whole House shall be taken in the following order: clauses 66 and 67 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to value added tax; clauses 1 to 5 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the charge to, the rates of and the limits and allowances for income tax; clause 6 and new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the charge to, and the main rate of, corporation tax; remaining proceedings in Committee;
	(e) if, on conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put;
	(f) proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on Second Reading.
	(5) Paragraph (4) shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the
	intervals between stages of a Bill brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions.
	(6) At the sitting on Wednesday 25 March–
	(a) any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill may be considered forthwith without any further Question being put;
	(b) proceedings on any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement.
	(7) The start of any emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held at the sitting on Wednesday 25 March shall be postponed until the conclusion of the proceedings at that sitting to which this Order applies.
	Thursday 26 March
	(8) On Thursday 26 March there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.
	(9) At the sitting on Thursday 26 March–
	(a) proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to the valedictory debate recommended by the Backbench Business Committee shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) at 4.30pm;
	(b) any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill may be considered forthwith without any further Question being put;
	(c) proceedings on any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement;
	(d) no debate shall be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates);
	(e) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House before a Message has been received from the Lords Commissioners.
	General
	(10) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	(11) In this Order, a reference to proceedings on or in respect of a Bill includes a reference to proceedings on any Motion to alter the order in which those proceedings are considered and (except in paragraph (4)(c)) to proceedings on any Procedure Resolution, Money Resolution or Ways and Means Resolution in relation to those proceedings.
	(12) If today’s sitting continues after 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday 25 March, this Order shall have effect as if any reference to the sitting on Wednesday 25 March or Thursday 26 March were a reference to today’s sitting.
	(13) If the sitting on Wednesday 25 March continues after 9.30 a.m. on Thursday 26 March, this Order shall have effect as if any reference to the sitting on Thursday 26 March were a reference to the sitting on Wednesday 25 March.
	(14) If today’s sitting or the sitting on Wednesday 25 March continues as described in paragraph (12) or (13), any business set down for consideration at the later sitting or sittings mentioned in that paragraph may be considered at the continued sitting, notwithstanding the practice of the House which forbids the bringing forward of an Order of the Day.—(Mr Hague.)

Christopher Chope: I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has not chosen to speak to this very important motion.
	We are in a fixed-term Parliament. The Government have known for the best part of five years the date of Dissolution, yet this motion is expressed in terms that suggest there is some sort of emergency requiring the Finance Bill be considered tomorrow in all its stages in a maximum of six hours.
	It may well be that Opposition Members are indifferent to this, but having seen the Finance Bill, which was printed only today for the first time, I notice that the explanatory notes extend to some 258 pages. There are some 127 clauses covering 121 pages, and 21 schedules covering a further 220 pages. It does not seem possible to do justice to those provisions on behalf of all the people who could be affected by the Bill by considering it for only six hours and at relatively short notice. Given that we knew that we were approaching Dissolution, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will explain why the arrangements were made in such a way as to allow so little time for the Bill.
	In the past, as I recall, a shorter Finance Bill has been introduced at this stage, with provision for a second Bill to be introduced after the general election to deal with matters in more detail. In that way, it has been possible to scrutinise the important changes that affect businesses and individuals up and down the country. I fear that we shall have no such opportunity this time.
	I should also like to tease out what my right hon. Friend has in mind in paragraph 1(c) of the motion, which states:
	“At today’s sitting and the sittings on Wednesday 25 March and Thursday 26 March…no notice shall be required of any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown and any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption and shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House”.
	Does one of the motions that he intends to bring forward under these provisions relate to the commitments he made to me and to the House in recent weeks? On 5 February, I asked him:
	“When will my right hon. Friend publish the draft changes to Standing Orders that will be necessary to implement English votes on English issues?”
	He replied:
	“That is a party matter, rather than a Government matter, since there are different policies among the coalition parties. However, it is important to show the detail, so I intend later this month to set out how the proposal that I made earlier this week can be implemented in Standing Orders.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2015; Vol. 592, c. 426.]
	I was very pleased with that response. Unfortunately, nothing had happened by the end of February, so I returned to the issue on 12 March, again during Business questions. I said to my right hon. Friend:
	“On 5 February at column 426 of Hansard, my right hon. Friend told me that he intended ‘later’ in February to set out the draft changes to Standing Orders to implement English votes for English laws. Why was he not able to meet his own target deadline of the end of February? May I seek an assurance from him that he will meet it before his final departure from this place?”
	He responded:
	“My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young)”—
	who I am pleased to see is in his place—
	“asked about this last week. It is true that February has stretched into March, and I am conscious of the commitment that was made to my hon. Friend, so I do intend to publish the proposed Standing Order changes.”—[Official Report, 12 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 413.]
	Those changes to Standing Orders could be introduced in the form of a motion, no notice of which would be required, under the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of the business of the House motion that we are now considering. I hope that I am not being unduly optimistic in asking my right hon. Friend to confirm that that is indeed his intention, and that that is why he has included in the motion a reference to motions being able to be brought forward by Ministers of the Crown without notice. I have not yet seen any record in the Official Report of a ministerial statement altering the commitments that my right hon. Friend has already made on English votes for English laws, so I hope he will take this opportunity to introduce the changes today.
	This matter is topical, not least because a series of public petitions is due to be presented later today by a host of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the issue of English votes for English laws. It would be a big mistake if we were to enter the general election campaign without having this matter properly clarified, at the very least in the form of a draft Standing Order attached to a motion brought forward by the Government without notice.

William Hague: The type of motion before the House is usual in the run-up to the end of a Parliament, and this motion facilitates the effective and efficient use of the time of the House in bringing this Session, and this Parliament, to a satisfactory conclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is quite right to say that this Parliament is different from its predecessors in being a fixed-term Parliament. That is why there are so few Bills left to consider, and so few Bills moving between this House and the other place, at this stage. As is set out in the motion, we will go on to consider Lords amendments to two Bills, including the Modern Slavery
	Bill, which is still before the other place, but they represent a small proportion of the legislative programme and there is no reason why this should not come to an orderly conclusion. The motion provides for it to do so.
	The one exception to the Bills that have been able to make such progress is of course the Finance Bill, to which my hon. Friend has referred. We have known for a long time that the Budget would take place six days ago on 18 March, which it duly did, and that a Finance Bill would therefore have to be considered in fairly short order between then and the Dissolution of Parliament. This is not an uncommon development. Those of us who were here in 1992 will remember the Budget being delivered only a couple of days before the Dissolution of Parliament, and that has happened on a number of other occasions as well. That has often led to substantial Finance Acts being introduced immediately after the Budget, as is the case here. I do not see any difference in principle between those occasions and this one.

Christopher Chope: If my memory serves me correctly, a very short Finance Act followed the Budget in 1992, with the main, substantive Finance Bill being brought forward after the general election.

William Hague: It is true that there was a further Finance Act, but it is also true that many provisions were included in the initial Finance Act, as far as could be agreed with the Opposition. The present Opposition have not opposed—let us put it that way—the great majority of the measures in this year’s Budget, and we have therefore been able to include a greater proportion of it in the Finance Bill. As with any Bill, however, it will be for the House to reach its judgment in the normal way on the Finance Bill when we debate it tomorrow. My hon. Friend will be able to take part in those debates. We are providing the time that is available for the Finance Bill before the Dissolution of Parliament, which must by law take place on 30 March, which is next Monday, so the time available to debate the Bill is tomorrow. If my hon. Friend wants to tell Treasury Ministers that he wishes it was a smaller Finance Bill, he will of course be able to do so during those debates.
	On my hon. Friend’s final question about paragraph 1(c) of the motion, the answer is a fairly comprehensive no. As I pointed out in my first answer that he read out on a change to Standing Orders relating to English votes on English laws, this is a party matter. It would be possible to lay a Government motion under the provisions of paragraph 1(c) only if such a motion had been agreed across the whole coalition. My hon. Friend is well versed in these matters, and he will know that the policy on this issue is not agreed across the coalition and that it therefore remains a party matter. It is therefore not for me, as Leader of the House in the Government, to publish any such proposed changes to Standing Orders; I could do so only as a Conservative party spokesman. It remains my intention to do so, but not as Leader of the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Recall of MPs Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Eleanor Laing: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendment 18. If the House agrees to that Lords amendment, Mr Speaker will ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1
	 — 
	How an MP becomes subject to a recall petition process

Sam Gyimah: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Lords amendments 2 to 17, 21, 22 and 27.

Sam Gyimah: The amendments in this group relate to the circumstances that would trigger a recall petition. They were tabled by the Government in the House of Lords to ensure that the important changes made to the Bill in this House are reflected throughout the Bill, ensuring that the legislation works in practice. The Prime Minister made it clear that the Government would be open to Parliament changing and improving this Bill, and that has happened. We had a free vote on amendments brought forward on Report, and I am pleased that the provisions have been strengthened as a result.
	Honourable Members may recall that on Report in this House, Members voted to add to the provisions in the Bill to trigger a recall petition following a conviction for expenses-related offences under section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, irrespective of sentence. The House also changed the second trigger so that a recall petition would be opened if an MP were suspended on the recommendation of the Standards Committee for 10 or more sitting days, rather than the 21 or more sitting days in the original Bill. As only the lead amendments were moved at that time, the Government tabled amendments in the House of Lords—amendments 1 to 6, 8, 9, 12 to 15, 17, 21 and 22—which are required to give full effect to the changes.
	Amendment 7 gives effect to an amendment agreed in this House to ensure that offences committed before the Act comes into force can trigger the opening of a recall petition so long as the conviction and sentencing take place after the Act comes into force. Amendments 10 and 11 further define the allowable appeal period in the case of a conviction that would trigger the opening of a recall petition under the first or third recall condition. That ensures that an MP has the opportunity to appeal against a conviction, but that the recall petition process can also begin in a timely manner. Amendment 27 is a technical amendment, clarifying the definition of “overturned on appeal”. Amendment 16 corrects a minor oversight, by removing the requirement for the courts to inform the Speaker of a sentence that would
	lead to recall if the person in question had already ceased to be an MP—in such circumstances, it is clearly no longer necessary for the Speaker to be informed.
	The amendments in this group are therefore largely consequential and technical, and give proper effect to changes that were made with considerable support in this House. I look forward to the debate on these amendments, which I commend to the House.

Stephen Twigg: We welcome and support these Lords amendments. On Report, it was a Labour amendment that added a third recall condition of conviction for an offence under section 10 of the 2009 Act, so we particularly welcome these amendments from the other place. As the Minister said, they are minor and technical amendments, but they ensure the Bill will work by making this third recall condition fully operational.
	The group also contains helpful amendments concerning the second recall condition. For example, when an MP is suspended from the House, the report of the Committee on Standards which precedes the House of Commons’ order for a suspension must relate specifically to that MP, not to general behaviour. As the Minister said, the House of Lords has also tidied up certain elements of the Bill. Amendment 7 ensures that a recall petition can be brought for offences committed before the day on which the Act comes into force, so long as the conviction and sentencing took place after that date.
	Amendment 10 ensures that the third recall condition—on conviction for an offence and sentencing—would begin once all relevant appeals had been determined. That is a sensible but important provision. Other amendments make welcome technical changes to tidy up the proposed legislation. Amendments 23 to 25 would remove the power of the Speaker to appoint a person to exercise the Speaker’s functions under the Bill in his or her absence, and instead allow the elected Chairman of Ways and Means or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means to do so if the Speaker is unable to perform them. As the Minister explained, these are technical and consequential amendments, and the Opposition are happy to give them our support.

David Heath: I rise to support the amendments, such as they are, from the House of Lords. They clearly strengthen the Bill in a minor way. Members may recall that we expended a fair amount of time and effort trying to strengthen the Bill in a more concrete way when it was before this House by giving access to a non-parliamentary route for recall. I am sad that we did not find a solution acceptable to both Houses to enable that to happen. Having said that, I do not agree with the argument that it would be better not to have a Bill at all. This Bill is a substantial step forward. It does not go as far as I would like, but I recognise that if we have it in place and it receives Royal Assent, as I assume it will, there is a substrate on which we can build—not me, but successor Parliaments—in order to provide a more acceptable position for the future.
	As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) mentioned an amendment in the next group, I hope you will afford me the latitude of saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, that amendments 23 to 25 were ones that I tabled originally in this House. I am
	very pleased to see that the Government have accepted them in the Lords, so I will not need to say anything about them when we get to the next group.

Sam Gyimah: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say, as I said in my opening remarks, that these amendments are sensible modifications, ensuring that the Bill works effectively. I hope the House will support them, I am grateful for the Opposition spokesman’s comments on them and I commend them to the House.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 2 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Where and from when the recall petition may be signed

Tom Brake: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 18.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
	Lords amendments 19, 20, 23 to 26 and 28 to 32.

Tom Brake: The amendments in this group relate to the way in which recall petitions will be run. They pick up on a number of points made in debates in both Houses and are designed to make improvements to the operation of the recall petitions for the benefit of constituents, administrators and campaigners. The amendments also ensure that the Electoral Commission plays a greater role in reporting on the operation of recall petitions in practice. I will describe the amendments briefly and will also address the more technical amendments that form part of this group.
	Amendments 18 to 20 relate to constituents’ engagement with and access to the recall petition process. Lords amendment 18 increases the number of signing places that the petition officer can designate from a maximum of four to a maximum of 10. This amendment addresses concerns expressed during previous debates in this House and the House of Lords about accessibility for constituents living in rural areas who may wish to sign the petition in person. In setting the number at 10, we consulted the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and the returning officers for the Western Isles and for Argyll and Bute. They were clear that a limit of four could pose particular challenges in large rural constituencies or in constituencies with a number of islands, and felt that a raised limit would afford them helpful flexibility.
	The increase in the maximum number of signing places has enabled the Government to consider whether a reduction in the signing period would be sensible, given the improved access to the signing process. Having considered the issue carefully, the Government brought forward Lords amendment 19, which reduces the signing period from eight to six weeks. That means that the constituents and the MP in question would get the result of the petition much quicker than we originally
	proposed. A slightly shorter period will have practical benefits for the administration of petitions and means that campaigners do not need to sustain their activities over quite so long a period.
	The increase in the number of signing places and the reduction in the signing period strikes the right balance between tightening the process and enabling proper access to signing. It allows sufficient time for electors to consider the campaigns for and against signing a petition and enables those who wish to sign by post to make an application.
	Lords amendment 20 improves the final sentence of the wording to appear on the petition signing sheet, making it easier for electors to understand that, if fewer than 10% of the registered electors in a constituency sign a petition, the MP will not lose his or her seat and a by-election will not be held.
	Members will remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) tabled an amendment on Report to improve the wording on this point, and, having reflected on the helpful contributions made in debate on that amendment the Government brought forward a comparable amendment.
	Amendments 23 to 25, which relate to clause 19,make provision for the recall process to start if the Speaker is unable to perform his duties as set out in the Bill. Clause 19, when originally drafted, mirrored existing legislation in permitting the Speaker to appoint a deputy to carry out those functions.
	During the debate in this House, the question of whether that is necessary was raised, as we now elect the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. The amendments update the Bill to reflect that important change in the House’s arrangements by making it clear that, where the Speaker is unable to perform his functions under the Bill,they will transfer automatically to the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. I thank my right hon. Friend for flagging up that matter during earlier debates. On behalf of everyone here, let me say that his expertise in this area will be greatly missed in the next Parliament.
	Amendment 24 clarifies that the Speaker will be unable to carry out his functions if he is himself the subject of a recall petition, in which case the function would pass to the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.
	Briefly, Lords amendment 26 was made in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill. A power to amend the Act through secondary legislation was originally included to allow it to be easily updated with regard to reforms of existing electoral law, such as the move to individual electoral registration. Those reforms were outstanding at that point but have now been made. There is therefore no longer a need for the power to amend the Act itself through regulations. Amendment 26, therefore, removes this power in accordance with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendation.
	Lastly, Lords amendments 28 to 30 and 32 relate to the role of the Electoral Commission in the recall process. The amendments build on those tabled by the Opposition on Report in the House of Lords. The Government are grateful to the Opposition for their support on Third Reading. It must have been something
	of a novelty for the Opposition to see the Government so readily accept amendments during the progress of this Bill.
	During the Bill’s progress through the House of Lords, noble Lords expressed their concern, which the Government share, that the rules for regulating the campaign must function in practice. These amendments will require the petition officer to forward all recall petition returns to the Electoral Commission. That will support a further amendment requiring the Electoral Commission to produce a report after every recall petition. That alters the original provisions in the Bill, which required the Electoral Commission to report only on its own initiative.
	The Electoral Commission’s report will look at how the provisions of the Act, including the rules on spending and donations, operated in practice at each petition. It has indicated that automatically receiving the spending and donation returns will allow it to examine and report on whether the current spending limits and registration thresholds seem appropriate for recall events, and whether they prevent undue influence over the outcome of these processes.
	In drafting this Bill, the Government have sought to ensure that, in the event of a recall petition taking place, the process is fair to all participants, that participation is encouraged and that wealthy campaigners cannot have an undue influence.

Jonathan Edwards: I have listened with great interest to what the Minister has to say. Does not Lords amendment 19, which reduces the period during which the recall petition would be available for signing from eight to six weeks, make it far more likely that an MP under the recall mechanism is far more likely to survive the process?

Tom Brake: We had to strike a balance between the number of signing places and the number of weeks that a petition was available. We felt that, following the discussions that had taken place in both Houses, the idea of providing a maximum of 10 signing places and allowing six weeks was an appropriate compromise. It is always worth reinforcing the point that postal voting is available, which makes the petition process and the recall process quite open and acceptable.

Jonathan Edwards: In the Minister’s opening remarks, he coupled Lords amendment 18 with Lords amendment 19. Would it not be better for Lords amendment 18 to say a “minimum” of 10 rather than a maximum of 10?

Tom Brake: That is a subject of debate. If the returning officer in the constituency of Argyll and Bute, which has, I think, more islands than any other constituency, felt that 10 signing places was appropriate, it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which more than 10 would be required anywhere else in the country. There can always be a debate on whether that is the appropriate number. I hope that returning officers will ensure that, for their particular locality, the right number is chosen. I suspect that in my patch, if ever there were to be a recall petition in Carshalton and Wallington, two or three signing places would be the maximum required, as the constituency size is only about four by five miles. However, I have to say that such a petition will not be required in my constituency.
	With these amendments, the Electoral Commission will be able to review every recall petition process to help ensure that the spending and donations rules are working in line with the principles. Lords amendment 31 corrects a minor and technical cross-reference in schedule 5 to the Bill.
	I look forward to a short debate on these amendments, which I commend to the House.

Stephen Twigg: Let me start by apologising to the House, particularly to the right hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), that I was a little ahead of myself in addressing amendments 23 to 25, which are in the second grouping. I echo what the Deputy Leader of the House said by way of tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his record of work in this House. He has sought not only to work for his constituents but to reconnect the House with the public, which is an important challenge for all of us.
	The second group of amendments significantly improves the original legislation. As the Deputy Leader of the House has said, Lords amendment 18 would increase the number of places that the petition officer could designate in their constituency for signing the recall petition, from a maximum of four to a maximum of 10. That is welcome and should ensure that accessing a petition is not an overly difficult process for constituents. Amendment 19 would reduce the length of the period during which the recall petition is available, from eight to six weeks. We support that as it is combined with an increase in the number of signing places. Taken together, those amendments allow for easy access to the petition while giving a realistic time scale for the collection of signatures.
	Lords amendment 26 is welcome. It removes the power for the Act itself to be amended by regulations. Lords amendment 32 is especially welcome and important as it requires the Electoral Commission to produce and publish a report on the recall petition process after the end of the petition period in relation to each recall petition. That is important because it enables us to learn from the process as it develops. This is a new and innovative feature of our political system. It is good that the Electoral Commission is tasked with producing and publishing such a report, so that we can learn lessons from each petition and, if necessary, make changes to improve public access to the process.
	I agree that the Bill has been improved through the stages of scrutiny in this place and in the House of Lords. I believe it will play a part—probably quite a modest part—in improving the accountability of Parliament and Members of Parliament, and therefore play a small role in renewing our political institutions.

Tom Brake: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. The amendments follow thorough scrutiny in both Houses and will improve the operation of recall petitions by encouraging participation and ensuring public confidence in the outcome. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their constructive scrutiny of the Bill. I believe the Bill will provide our constituents with a further means of holding us to account—beyond the greater means that happen on 7 May—in the form of an additional tool that can be used where Members of Parliament have committed serious wrongdoing. I commend the amendments to the House.
	Lords amendment 18 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.
	Lords amendments 19 to 32 agreed to.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments.

Eleanor Laing: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 85, 123 and 133. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, Mr Speaker will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 41
	 — 
	The Pubs Code

Jo Swinson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 34.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss: Lords amendments 35 to 62, 86, 132 and 136 to 141.

Jo Swinson: Part 4 of the Bill will introduce a statutory code and an independent adjudicator to regulate the relationship between large pub companies and their tied tenants. It will address problems about which many hon. Members and the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills have been concerned for a number of years.
	The House will remember that, on Report in this House in November, a market rent only option for tied pub tenants was added by way of a vote. In the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe confirmed the Government’s acceptance of the will of this House, so we have before us a Bill that honours that commitment and remains true to the spirit and intention of the amendment introduced by this House on Report. For example, MRO must be provided for by the code, it must set out reasonable time scales for the process, and it must include certain MRO triggers. Government amendments 39, 40, and 41 amend the original clause 42, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his dedication to this cause, his relentless campaigning for the rights of tied tenants, and his willingness to move forward. The way he has worked and championed the measure with MPs from both sides of the House, with the all-party group and with campaigners up and down the country is a real testament to what can be achieved by someone with vision and determination.
	The amendments ensure that MRO is workable within the approach taken in part 4, is legally robust, and avoids unintended consequences. They are split into three clauses for clarity, one setting out a clear framework for the MRO option, one making provision for the procedures needed to deliver it, and one providing for the adjudicator to resolve disputes.
	Amendment 39 provides tied tenants with the right to a market rent only agreement at a number of trigger points: at a rent review, at lease renewal, when there is a significant and unexpected price increase, or if an event occurs that is outside the tenant’s control and has a significant impact on the tenant’s trade. Although
	prospective tenants will not have the right to the market rent only option, they will have the protection of the parallel rent assessment, so that they can judge if the tied deal they are being offered is fair. PRA will also be available to existing tenants and, through secondary legislation, will be streamlined with the MRO process.
	Amendment 40 sets out the procedure for the market rent only option and provides that the pubs code must specify a reasonable period for the two stages of the process. The first stage is where a tenant and their pub company try to agree a rent, and the second involves the determination of a market rent by an independent assessor. Amendment 41 provides the powers to enable the adjudicator to resolve disputes over matters such as the proposed MRO agreement, the independent assessor’s determination of the market rent, and whether the MRO procedures have been followed.
	The original MRO clause included triggers for MRO upon the sale of a pub or the administration of a pub-owning company. In discussions with stakeholders, it became clear that it was not the fact of sale or administration itself that was a concern; rather, it was the potential for a pub sale, whether as part of an administration or in the normal course of business, to result in adverse consequences for the tenant. After extensive consultation and discussion with stakeholders and debate in the other place, amendment 47 extends the protections of the code—apart from the market rent only option—to tenants whose pub is sold by a code company to a company outside the statutory code.
	To deter avoidance and ensure fairness we are also continuing code protections—excluding the market rent only option—until the next rent review for the tied tenants of pubs owned by a code company which, by selling a number of their other pubs, falls below the threshold of 500 tied pubs. Those tenants too would have continuing rights and expectations regarding their existing lease and the protections they should have under the statutory code, and they should not lose their protections because of events beyond their control.
	We believe that this is a proportionate and targeted protection. It will last until the next rent assessment or the end of the tenancy, whichever comes first. MRO will not be extended, and nor will the investigation powers of the adjudicator. Investigation powers are not continued because they are designed to uncover systemic breaches of the code. It would not be right to include in that power companies that are obliged to follow the code only because some of the pubs they own used to belong to a code company, and that are covered by the code only in respect of those pubs. However, the arbitration powers of the adjudicator do remain, so those tenants will be able to refer any allegations of a code breach during the extension period to the adjudicator.

Jim Cunningham: What would the penalty be for any breaches?

Jo Swinson: The adjudicator will be able to make recommendations so that problems can be put right, and ultimately it will have the power to levy fines. The specific details will be set out in secondary legislation, but we have a model in the Groceries Code Adjudicator. That adjudicator is already working, and we are learning from it how such a system can work smoothly in terms of staffing, for example.
	Amendments 43, 44, 45, 55, 132 and 139 are consequential technical amendments to the MRO amendments. They relate to the enforcement of the code, the adjudicator’s annual report, the list of defined terms in clause 69 and to commencement.
	The original market rent only clause allowed brewers that own tied pubs to require their MRO tenants to continue to sell the brewery’s products, as long as the tenant may buy them from any source. Amendment 46 implements that intention by amending clause 65 so that such a stocking requirement in a tenancy agreement would not of itself make the pub a tied pub. In stakeholder discussions, brewers requested greater clarity on what they were permitted to do under a stocking requirement; others were concerned that the stocking requirement might lead to undue restrictions on tenants who have chosen MRO.
	Amendment 46 clarifies that brewers may also protect their route to market by allowing some restrictions on the sales of competitors’ products in their MRO pubs. However they will not be able to require that these pubs sell only their products and they will need to satisfy themselves that the requirements they are imposing are compliant with competition law. The restrictions may be placed only on beer and cider products and, crucially, tenants must be able to buy the brewer’s products from any source.

Toby Perkins: In the event of marketing arrangements which meant that the only place that beers could be purchased was direct from the brewer, do the provisions take account of the fact that the tenant’s right to do so might be difficult to put into practice?

Jo Swinson: The adjudicator could look into whether practices were all fair and whether the code had been properly complied with. Depending on the circumstances, competition law may also be relevant. The companies would have to assure themselves that any restrictions that they were placing were compliant with competition law. Through the new code and the adjudicator we will make sure that there is somebody who can look into the circumstances and arbitrate on whether what is being offered is fair and compliant with the statutory code.
	For completeness, I shall touch on three other important areas of debate both here and in the other place where the Government have made important commitments to use existing powers in the Bill. On Report in this House, I committed to consider calls to exempt genuinely short-term agreements from the pubs code. My noble Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe confirmed that the Government would use the power in clause 68 to exclude from the code tied pubs that are operated on short-term tenancy at will and temporary agreements that do not extend beyond a certain limited period. We intend to consult on the length of the period for exemption.
	Hon. Members will remember that pub franchise agreements are in scope of our measures. They are, after all, tied pub agreements and share many of the characteristics of traditional tied pubs. Nevertheless, consistent calls have been made in both Houses to exempt certain franchise agreements from the code, or at least from MRO, if they do not charge rent and the price of products does not affect the tenant’s share of income. After much consideration, my noble Friend the
	Minister announced in the other place that the Government will use the power in clause 68 to exempt genuine franchises from the MRO provisions. The remaining code protections—for example, in respect of transparency—will still apply.
	Given the differences between traditional tied pubs and genuine franchise agreements, we consider this a reasonable exemption. We will consult on the precise definition of “genuine franchise”, but we expect it to include criteria such as where a turnover fee rather than a rent is paid by the tenant and the share of the profit is unaffected by the price paid for tied products. This is important as these criteria can mean that the tenant’s interests are arguably more aligned with those of the pub company because both rely on a fixed proportion of turnover. The tenant in such circumstances does not face the combination of the wet and dry rent, as tenants do in traditional agreements.
	There are other agreements in the industry which may be marketed as a pub franchise that display elements common to franchises in other sectors, such as common branding. But if they charge tenants a tied rent in the traditional way, they are not inherently fairer than a tied pub agreement. The consultation will allow us to set out the criteria for a genuine franchise.
	In addition, I should clarify that where a franchise pub falls within the definition of a tied pub in clause 65, it will count towards the number of tied pubs that a company owns for the purposes of the 500 tied pub threshold. This will ensure that we do not create a loophole in the legislation. Furthermore, the Government would be able to amend the regulations should there be attempts to use this exemption as a means of avoiding the legislation.
	Next, I come to the matter of investment. Hon. Members will recall that Government committed to avoiding unintended consequences in introducing this legislation. In the other place, and in discussions with stakeholders, concerns were raised as to whether investment in tied pubs could be discouraged because of uncertainty as to whether a tied tenant might trigger MRO. Views vary as to the extent of this risk to investment, but the Government consider that we should act to minimise any risk. We want to ensure that investment in pubs can take place and that pubs thrive. I am sure that sentiment is shared across the House.
	The Bill as drafted does not prevent pub companies from issuing a tenant with a new lease alongside an offer of investment, and no amendment to the Bill is necessary to enable companies to do so. This would, in effect, provide a waiver from the rent review and renewal MRO triggers for five years. However, the Government recognise that significant investments may warrant a longer period of return on investment. My noble Friend the Minister therefore announced in the other place that the Government will use existing powers in clause 41 to set out in the code different rent assessment periods for different amounts of substantial capital investment offered. This will have the effect of deferring the rent assessment trigger for MRO for a longer period. It is important to note, though, that the other MRO triggers—that of a significant price increase and an economic event that impacts on a tenant’s trade—will remain throughout the deferral period.
	Alongside setting out the deferral periods for different levels of investment, the secondary legislation will set out important safeguards for tenants—for example, to
	ensure that they accept an investment offer only after taking proper advice and that they cannot be pressurised. This is an area where both sides of the debate recognise that the need to enable investment and the need to protect tenants must go hand in hand. It is important that we can consult fully on the details so that we get it right.
	These commitments regarding exemptions for certain tenancy at will, temporary and franchise agreements, and for a deferral of MRO in return for substantial investment, are not on the face of the Bill. They will be set out in secondary legislation after full public consultation.
	Finally, I shall touch briefly on a number of technical amendments in this group before turning to the second issue in the group. Amendments 34 to 37 are technical clarifications to the “no worse off” and “fair and lawful dealing” principles. The key change is to make it clear that tied pub tenants should not be worse off than they would be if they were not subject to any product or service tie. Amendments 35, 36, 38, 42 and 48 to 54 are consequential on the changes made to clause 66 in this House to exclude family brewers from the provisions. This change means the legislation will apply only to a pub-owning business with 500 or more tied pubs. There are further minor technical amendments, on which I refer honourable Members to the explanatory notes for a fuller explanation.
	Finally, amendments 136, 137, 138, 140 and 141 relate to adjudicator staffing and the point that I made earlier in response to the hon. Gentleman. They amend schedule 1 to enable the adjudicator to second staff from any source, in addition to the existing power in the Bill for the adjudicator to second from the public sector. The aim is to provide the necessary flexibility for the adjudicator to find suitable staff from a wider pool.
	I am sure the House will agree that throughout our debates in both Houses all the pubs measures have been thoroughly scrutinised. Incorporating the market rent only option into the Bill in the limited time available to us and ensuring that it will work in practice has not been easy, but I believe that we have produced legislation that promises to be effective as well as targeted and proportionate. Crucially, these measures mark an historic moment for tied tenants of pub-owning companies. They will have the protections of a statutory code with a powerful and independent adjudicator to enforce that code. That the measures have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), CAMRA, Fair Pint and others is a testament to that, so I hope the House will agree to the amendments.

Greg Knight: I understand that the provisions on staff secondment require the Secretary of State’s approval. Can my hon. Friend give the House an example of the circumstances in which a Secretary of State might refuse such approval?

Jo Swinson: Clearly, the intention is to make sure that the adjudicator is able to recruit staff with the requisite expertise and experience, not only from the public sector pool. That is an important change and we have learned from the legislation that we have in place for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Understandable concerns were raised in Committee about whether staff would come with
	vested interests. It is important that protections are in place to ensure that everybody can have confidence in the staff who are seconded, and to ensure that up-to-date experience of industry does not entail a conflict of interest.
	On amendment 86 and the important matter of pay transparency, I am delighted to reiterate the Government’s support for this amendment to the employment part of the Bill that was introduced in the other place. We have already legislated in this Parliament to ensure that companies which directly discriminate against women in pay matters can be required by a tribunal to complete a gender pay audit, as well as to pay compensation. The new provision requires the next Government to make regulations under section 78 of the Equality Act 2010 within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Section 78 requires mandatory reporting of gender pay information by larger companies.
	It is 45 years since the Equal Pay Act, and although the gender pay gap is at its lowest ever level and has been virtually eliminated for full-time workers under the age of 40, it is simply not acceptable that in 2015 we still have a gender pay gap at all. We are determined to eliminate it entirely.

Toby Perkins: I endorse what the Minister says about the need to deal with this matter urgently. Given that urgency, will she explain why the provision she is now bringing forward under the Equality Act 2010 has been sitting on the statute book for five years? Why is it that only at the fag end of this Parliament are we seeing some action, which the Opposition have been calling for throughout those years?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition have been calling for this throughout this Parliament, but unfortunately that was not the case when they were in government. I refer him to the Hansard report of proceedings on the Equality Bill on 24 June 2009, when the then Labour Minister said that
	“having mandatory arrangements in force by 2011 would run the risk of riding roughshod over the legitimate voice of both sides of the business community. Progress can better be made by bringing employers with us—by including, encouraging and cajoling, rather than compelling.”
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) responded:
	“We cannot wait another four years…It is clear that we must take action now”.––[Official Report, Equality Bill Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2009; c. 410-432.]
	We have got agreement in the Government to take that forward, but I have to say that the context of the commitments made from this Dispatch Box by the previous Labour Government during the passage of the Equality Act—they committed to a voluntary approach before implementing the legislation—certainly did not make that easier. None the less, I am delighted that we are now where we are.
	We have of course been taking action over the past few years. Our Think, Act, Report initiative has created a powerful community of companies that are leading the way on gender equality. More than 275 companies covering more than 2.5 million employees are now taking action and sharing best practice on how they
	recruit, promote and retain female talent in their organisations. However, too few have voluntarily published their pay gap. I would like to take this opportunity to praise those companies that have taken that courageous step. Companies such as Friends Life, Genesis Housing Association, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Tesco, AstraZeneca and Sodexo have made the commitment that they would do so by 2016.
	However, I have spoken with representatives of some of those companies about how they managed to achieve that change within their organisations, and they have told me of the battles they had to have in order to get that past their lawyers because of concern about the risk to the company. Indeed, at one event at which we were discussing the pay gap a business woman told me that companies would not publish those data because they would be self-critical. To be fair to employers, the gender pay gap is a thorny problem that has a range of different causes, not least occupational segregation, with women going into lower-paid sectors and jobs, and subject choices made at school. Therefore, tackling the gender pay gap is not straightforward. That is why we said that we would keep section 78 under review, which is what we have done.
	The amendment recognises that unless it is a legal requirement, organisations are much less likely to be prepared to publish those data because, for the reasons I have outlined, it is not the kind of picture that we all want to see in society. However, the transparency is crucial to making sure that we can tackle it. These regulations will require private and voluntary sector employers in Great Britain with at least 250 employees to publish information about the differences in pay between their male and female staff. By activating section 78, we will shine a light on the gender pay gap.
	The gender pay gap is not primarily about men and women being paid differently for the same job, although that forms part of it. That is already unlawful and has been prohibited by equal pay legislation for many years. The larger elements of the gender pay gap concern occupational segregation and career penalties for taking time out of the labour market, often because of caring responsibilities. Those things combine to create a situation in which women are paid less. We want more businesses to take a proactive approach to tackling these problems and promoting equality in workplaces across the country. Employers might want to review their arrangements for flexible and part-time working patterns, provide support for maternity returners, actively encourage men to use shared parental leave and tackle unconscious bias during recruitment.
	Roger Cotton of Friends Life, which won last year’s Opportunity Now award for transparency, has clearly set out the case for gender pay gap reporting. He said: “What gets measured gets managed…what gets published gets managed even better.” I am delighted that the Women’s Business Council, an independent body established by Government, has today published a short guide for businesses on the gender pay gap, entitled, “Mending the talent gap”. It explains to employers what the gender pay gap is, why it matters and the actions they can take to help close it. I would like to offer a special thanks to the council’s members, and particularly its dynamic chair, Ruby McGregor-Smith, the CEO of Mitie Group, for their continuing dedication and
	commitment to using their immense influence within the business world to advance women’s position in the workplace.
	The amendment before us requires that consultation must take place before implementation. By consulting with business, we will find the best and most effective way of implementing section 78 while meeting the objective of achieving genuine transparency on pay and tackling the gender pay gap now. I look forward to the House’s support for the amendment.

Toby Perkins: It is a great pleasure to speak on the amendments proposed by the noble Lords.
	On 16 July, we debated the Second Reading of this Bill. It was interesting, in preparing for this debate, to re-read the contributions that were made then and those that have been made by Labour Members in both Houses during its subsequent stages. Though modesty would usually prevent me from quoting extensively from the contribution that I made, it would be strange not to reflect on how widely our critique of the Bill has been adopted by the Government. We said that it had the potential to make a real difference to small businesses but that the steps that it originally proposed were a collection of faint nods in the right direction of key issues that had emerged under this Government. We said that far more robust action would be needed if this Bill was to deliver on the steps small businesses required and to take action on things like abuses of the labour market and their impact on workers in every constituency in the land. On the subject of pubs, we said that a successful small business Bill—a Labour small business Bill—would have introduced a code with a market rent only option, which the Bill now indeed contains. It would be churlish not to recognise that the Government have ultimately acted in good faith on pub company legislation.
	I should place it on the record that this is the last piece of legislation that the Minister will be bringing through in this Parliament. As we fast approach the general election, who knows when will be the next time a Liberal Democrat Minister will have the opportunity to bring through a piece of legislation? She has done a good job in reflecting the wishes of the House and has acted in good faith on pub company regulation.
	Their lordships’ amendments broadly achieve the objective of striking the devilishly difficult balance between proper protection for pub tenants while not imposing an overly rigid straitjacket on the industry with the potential to discourage future investment. They are positive steps forward that have faithfully built on the spirit of the historic clause 42 proposed by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). We recognise that some aspects of the proposals will sensibly need to be included in the pubs code through secondary legislation.
	There remains the thorny issue of the right of the tenant to offer a substantial investment in their public house in exchange for giving up the right to use the next rent review period as a trigger to request an MRO assessment. The letter dated 16 March from the Minister, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, to the noble Lords Mendelsohn and Stevenson details the Government’s intentions with regard to new clause 43 and specifies that it must not be used to abuse the waiver. However, this will still leave those who fought this cause for many
	years with considerable unease that this creates the potential for too broad an exemption for too small an investment.
	We entirely agree with the Government that encouraging future investment in the stock of public houses is a crucial element in the future success of the industry, but, over four months since the original victory for clause 42, that still leaves a huge unanswered question about the scale of investment that constitutes “substantial”. I think that my party’s record on this issue means that campaigners will have confidence that the statutory code that addresses it under a future Labour Government will be consistent with the approach—

Andrew Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman mentioned his party’s position on investment. What scale of investment does he believe would constitute “substantial”?

Toby Perkins: That is an excellent question. The whole reason this issue is being placed in secondary legislation is that we recognise that there is a very difficult balance to strike. The formula needs to be dependent on the relationship of the investment to the value of the pub. For some pubs, a £30,000 investment might be substantial. For a town centre or city centre pub, a £200,000 investment might not be so substantial. There needs to be some sort of relationship between the rateable value of a pub, the amount that it turns over, and the amount of investment.
	The hon. Gentleman is echoing my point, which is that this has been left very open. A great deal of work would need to be done. I assure the House that under a future Labour Government the principles laid out by Baroness Neville-Rolfe are exactly how we would see this. I anticipate that the same would be true of a Liberal Democrat-influenced Administration, although it would be good to hear the Minister clarify that. It would also be good to hear from the Conservative party whether its manifesto will follow the Bill’s principles, or whether it will take a different approach. The industry and campaigners have the right to expect that.

Matthew Hancock: For the record, the Conservative party’s position on this issue is exactly the same as that of the Government.

Toby Perkins: Excellent. I am glad that that has been placed on the record. That will give people considerable confidence in the Bill, and many campaigners will be grateful to hear what the Minister has just said. In the unlikely event of a Conservative victory, we will hold him to it.

Matthew Hancock: Get ready.

Toby Perkins: The Minister says from a sedentary position, “Get ready.” We understand that Lynton Crosby has been telling the Conservatives to get ready for the past four or five months, but they never seem to reach the point he promises. We will no doubt debate that over the next six weeks.
	The Government’s Lords amendment 39 replaces clause 42. We were proud to support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds North West. We
	did not think that Report stage was the time to get into a detailed discussion of all the nuances of each individual line, and we know that a tremendous amount of work went into drafting a clause that would offer all the necessary protections. We felt, however, that ultimately it was too prescriptive and could have unintended consequences, and we are pleased to have worked with the Government on the drafting of the new provision.
	Lords amendment 39 retains the triggers of renewal of tenancy, rent assessments and significant and unexpected price increases or other events beyond the tenant’s control that have a significant impact on their level of trade. The amendment omits the transfer of title and administration triggers that were in the original clause.
	On balance, we support that omission, albeit not without reservation. We believe that the impact on the natural order of a competitive market that would have resulted from pub tenants having the right to opt out at the point of transfer of title would have caused a real disincentive to invest. Ironically, it would have meant that when a pub was sold from a major pub chain to a microbrewer, fledgling pub operator or family brewer, the MRO could have been triggered, acting as a disincentive to the sort of business transaction we want to support and encourage as part of the diversification of the pub market.
	That means that campaigners and the next Government will need to be vigilant to prevent any attempts to use the amendment to game the legislation and exempt from the rights companies with any association with companies that we would expect the legislation to cover. The Minister in the other place has made specific the Government’s intentions and we have heard that there is consistency across the coalition.
	On the subject of tenants of pub-owning companies that go into administration, we fear that, at a time when the whole future of a large number of pubs would be very uncertain, the original provision would have made the task of the administrator a great deal more difficult. When they would be attempting to bring order to a complicated situation, some of the stock they were trying to sell off to new providers would disappear and move into the free trade sector. We concluded that that would make it much more difficult for pubs to survive in the event of a major pub-owning company failure. For those reasons, we support those omissions from Lords amendment 39.
	On Lords amendments 47 to 53, we are pleased that the Government have not sought to reintroduce to the code pub-owning companies with fewer than 500 pubs. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and I have enjoyed many a to and fro on the subject during the Bill’s various stages, but I remain of the view that, in voting the way we did, some egregious practices may not be covered by the protections. However, without that concession, we would have been less likely to win the support of the House for the MRO option. In the final analysis, that prize was worth the sacrifice. As a gesture of good will to the industry and as a matter of honour, this House should stick to what we have given it to believe we were legislating on, namely a code containing provisions for businesses owning more than 500 pubs. We are therefore pleased to support the Government’s commitment.
	The Government have probably got the balance right in Lords amendment 47, which accepts our suggestion of extending code protections—apart from the MRO option—to tenants whose pubs are sold from a pub-owning company covered by the Bill’s provisions to a company outside the Bill’s scope.
	Lords amendment 46 also performs a delicate balancing act by retaining the protection for pub-owning brewers to offer free of tie while also retaining their right to insist that their product is marketed. The question I asked the Minister is important, because some pub-owning brewers might think that retaining their stock and the right to market it is more important than their wholesale business. In that eventuality, if a brewer stops selling through their wholesale business, which they are perfectly entitled to do, a tenant who is in principle free of tie will still be forced, under the provision, to buy from that brewer as the only option available. We will need to look at that again.
	In summary, the pubs code with a market rent only option, which Opposition Members and indeed many right hon. and hon. Government Members have called for during most of this Parliament, is now being delivered. A considerable amount of work still needs to be done to ensure that the code backs up the Bill’s intentions, but this House and the other place have done a job of work and the Bill, which we have a chance to pass into law today, is a good deal stronger than anyone could have anticipated back in July.
	The Minister is absolutely right to say that Lords amendment 86 is very important. Ironically, she quoted her right hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who said in 2009 that four years was too long to wait, but she has been part of a Government who have waited until the very end and who—even during the passage of the Bill—did not intend to bring in such a provision until, in the face of defeat in the other place, they had to back down on the amendment championed by Baroness Thornton and Baroness King. The amendment stayed on the Lords marshalled list for weeks and weeks without the Government taking any action. When Baroness King spoke in favour of the amendment during a Lords debate on international women’s day, no Government peers rose to support her. Although I entirely agreed with the principles laid out by the Minister, it is a little bit rich for her to claim that Lords amendment 86 is part of some grand strategy, when it was simply a reaction to an impending defeat in the other place.
	Notwithstanding that fact, an important step has been taken, and if Baroness King was willing to heap praise on the Government for their athletic U-turn, who am I to stand in the way of recognising that in this area, as on pub companies, the Government may have taken some time to get there, but they have got to the right place in the end?

Andrew Griffiths: I draw the House’s attention to my chairmanship of the all-party group on beer, and to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	This has been a contentious and on some occasions ill-tempered debate. That is a great shame, because ultimately we all want the same thing—to achieve a thriving industry. We want British pubs to succeed, to
	reduce the number of pub closures that have gone on over decades in this country and to stop such closures taking place. We need legislation that will allow the industry to do that.
	The Government have obviously listened to the will of the House. I put forward a particular view—I had concerns about the unintended consequence of the Bill—but the House took a different view. The Government have listened to that view, and they have been honourable in how they have proposed changes to the legislation. Nobody who voted on Second Reading can have any concerns about the Government not having done the honourable thing in listening to the will of the House, so I commend them.
	We are all looking for the outcome that more pubs thrive, survive and are successful, but I just draw the attention of hon. Members to my concerns about unintended consequences. We have heard the phrase “the beer orders” on many occasions, and we have looked at what Lord Young and the then Government did in relation to legislation on brewers and pubs. The unintended consequence of that legislation was to put the industry in a worse position: it actually led to the creation of the pubcos that so many people now argue against vehemently, and it had a terribly detrimental impact on the industry and on the sustainability and profitability of pubs. I urge the Government, in continuing to develop their legislation, to be aware of the unintended consequences of their actions.
	One particular point to which I draw the House’s attention is the issue of investment. This is an industry. Yes, we love our community pubs, which are an important part of our society, and we all appreciate the work they do in our constituencies. However, such pubs have to be viable—profitable and successful—businesses for the people who invest in them. We all recognise that in the modern world, where there is the constant redevelopment and repackaging of the offering in the service industry, be it from Starbucks, Costa Coffee or the local pub, there is a dramatic need for investment. If a pub does not have investment, looks shabby and down-at-heel, does not feel modern and is not well-kept, the public will vote with their feet. They have so many other places to go to. They can enjoy their time at home or go to one of the many coffee shops, restaurants and other premises on the high street.
	Investment is essential if we are to develop our pub estate, improve the offering and the customer experience, and encourage more people to use the pub. That is what we have to do. The reality is that people are drinking less and going to pubs less. We have to allow the industry to provide a product that encourages people to leave their homes and visit our pubs. Investment is essential if we are to achieve that.
	I therefore urge the Government to look carefully at the secondary legislation that they bring forward. We need the companies that are investing in our pubs to have certainty. Investing in a pub can cost more than £50,000 and in some cases as much as £150,000 or £200,000. If companies are to make that investment, it is essential that they have some certainty about the return on their investment. If we cut off the supply of investment, it will be to the detriment of our pubs and we will see them go backwards. I therefore urge the Government, when they come forward with secondary legislation, to listen to the industry. It needs certainty.

Greg Mulholland: It is a pleasure to speak at the final stage of this important Bill. I shall of course speak about the pubs code. I am delighted that there is a string of amendments from the other place which I and my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary save the pub group and the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign can support and welcome.
	I thank all Members from all parts of the House who voted for the market rent only option on 18 November 2014, which will go down as a historic day for the British pub. I thank the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) for bringing his side firmly behind that proposal. I especially thank the Government Members who had the courage to defy their Whip in what was the only defeat of the Government Whip in this Parliament.
	I warmly welcomed it when the Government said that they would accept the will of the House. However, as most right hon. and hon. Members know, it appeared that that would not to be the case a few weeks ago. I and others expressed concern when, at the Grand Committee stage in the House of Lords, we no longer had a workable market rent only option that would definitely be introduced at a certain trigger point. We had to get that back into the Bill and we did.
	I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), and all the other Ministers, including the Minister for Business and Enterprise, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock). I thank the whole team who have worked on this issue. It has been a challenge for all of them to balance the different views. In the end, they have achieved that. They have achieved something remarkable: a proposal that people accept will be the future of the tied pub sector.
	I must express a few notes of concern because this is not the end of the matter. I was not sure whether to raise a pint this evening or next week when the Bill has gained Royal Assent, so I have decided to do both. This is not the end of the matter, because we still have the passage of the statutory instruments and the consultation over the pubs code, which will take a year. I and others will certainly be engaged in that. We understand and support the principle, but we must get it right.
	Let me say firmly that there must not be any watering down of the fundamental principle in the Bill—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) said, that would be as disgraceful as watering down the beer, and just as illegal. We must ensure that that principle is honoured, whoever is in government after the election—a question that none of us can answer at the moment.
	I wish to say quite forcefully that we must not be fooled by the idea that somehow the beer orders were the problem; it was the watering down of the beer orders as a result of industry lobbying that led to the tragedy and disaster of the beer orders. That watering down happened in the House of Lords, and I am delighted that this time we have collectively managed to stop it. It was precisely that watering down, with large companies saying, “Okay, well you’re going to legislate the beer orders, but give us that loophole and allow us to have that freedom if we don’t brew beer”, which led to the problem, although I believe we have avoided it this time.
	A number of changes have been made to the clause, but it does not apply to all tenants of large companies as we intended it to. If someone exercises their right to take the market rent only option, they suddenly exclude themselves from any protection under the code, which seems strange and perverse. Despite all the sound and fury, the market rent option is only the right to an independent rent assessment on a free-of-tie basis, and the right to pay that. There is no logic in saying that it should apply only to tied or part-tied tenants, and not to any tenant who believes that they may be being exploited at their rent review.
	The loopholes in the beer orders are the problem, and an obvious loophole—a new vehicle for some of the large, less scrupulous companies to exploit—allows companies to have excessive rental only agreements and excessive costs for insurance. There is an insurance scam in parts of the industry whereby people are forced to pay considerably more for insurance to their pub-owning company, even on a free-of-tie basis, than they would if they got insurance on the open market. The Government must be aware of that.
	Clearly we would have liked the sale of a pub to be a trigger, but I welcome the fact that the Government have sought to deal with the issue. We shall look further at the detail of the measure because there is a problem with companies, including developers, buying pubs and using the terms of tied agreements to force people out of those pubs so that they can get vacant possession and develop a site. There is a danger that large companies will seek to use the loophole to put themselves deliberately into administration, restructure and form smaller companies that would come under the limit, and then carry on business as usual.
	Investment is clearly a big issue, and I have had helpful and sensible discussions with Heineken, Greene King and Marston’s—all sustainable companies that will continue to survive and thrive. As I have made clear, it was never our intention to stop or discourage investment in pubs, and one of the biggest problems of the tied pubco model was the grotesque lack of investment—those scruffy pubs with the threadbare carpets that people could tell were Punch Taverns or Enterprise Inns pubs. Investment was left to the tenants, but they were not able to invest anything in their pub. James Baer of Amber Taverns said that the large companies were walking around with as much debt as Lance Armstrong had dope in his arm, and that that was one of the biggest problems in the pub sector—stopping investment in pubs.
	The intention behind our clause was always that if two partners agreed an investment, there would be a new rent and therefore no need for a rent review for another five years. We must avoid any sense that the market rent only option can or will be waived for investment that happens before a tenant signs an agreement, or signs up to one during a tenancy at will. Often the previous tenant asked for that investment but it was refused, even if it should have been made anyway to keep the pub in a fit state to let in the first place. That is not the kind of investment we should be talking about.
	I am pleased to say, however, that altogether we can welcome the changes. I thank the Fair Deal For Your Local campaign coalition and the organisations involved
	in it: the Campaign for Real Ale, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, Licensees Supporting Licensees, the Fair Pint Campaign, Licensees Unite the union, The Guild of Master Victuallers, Justice for Licensees, the Pubs Advisory Service, the GMB and of course my own Save the Pub group established in 2009. I think many right hon. and hon. Members would agree that this has been one of the most successful campaigning all-party groups of this Parliament. I warmly praise the incredible work of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee over the past eight years, chaired first by the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff) and then, just as ably, by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and all the members and staff of the Committee in that time.
	I thank the Minister in the other place who I know is taking a big interest in these proceedings. In her first speech in Committee, she said that I had failed to be prepared to be engaged. She then realised that the problem was that I had not been asked to be engaged properly. It was when I was asked that we were able to come to this agreement. I would be grateful if Ministers could pass on my thanks and praise to the officials and the special advisers who worked extremely hard to push this through.
	I have been working on this issue for more than seven years, as have many campaigners from the organisations I have mentioned. I want to dedicate this incredible legislative change to Trevor and Wendy Pragnell. Trevor died in his Enterprise Inns pub a week after having to close it. I sat with Wendy, his widow, and heard the reality of what this business model had done to them and their lives. Many other people have suffered at its hands, too. We should never forget that this is not just about pubs; this is about fairness and justice.
	This has been an amazing journey. This has been a David versus Goliath victory. This has been a victory for campaigning. This has been a victory for people power. This has been an emphatic and enthusiastic victory for this Parliament.

Neil Carmichael: I shall not linger long on this matter, although it has been very complicated and at times the debate has been robust. This is a victory for Parliament. The Bill has been properly contested and thoroughly debated, and the outcome is impressive. I want to signal my support for the amendments today and for the overall direction of the debate.
	During the passage of the Bill there were times when we disagreed, but those disagreements were based on a deep belief that we had to get it right. Overall, that is what has happened. I take on board the points relating to the code and to delegated legislation. It is absolutely right that more thinking will need to be done. Fundamentally, however, the direction of travel is now correct. Some of my concerns have been responded to properly by the House of Lords, which is absolutely fabulous. I think that anyone watching this debate will have been impressed by the way in which the two Houses have worked together to deal with this complicated Bill. They have produced an outcome that is good for the pub industry, good for the brewing industry and good for our communities and our pubs.
	Ultimately, we want successful pubs and successful breweries. I want pubs in my constituency to continue to thrive and for brewers to feel confident about
	opportunities in the marketplace in the years ahead. Small brewers need to be supported and promoted. The changes made to the Bill in the past few months will do exactly that. I therefore have great pleasure in signalling my support for the Bill today.

Jo Swinson: With the leave of the House, I wish to respond briefly to the debate and thank hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) was kind. As others have said, this is an example of where the Government have listened, Parliament has spoken and we have worked genuinely with stakeholders and people from all parties to come to the right outcome.
	Some outstanding concerns have been raised. The hon. Member for Chesterfield asked whether the investment waiver would end up being too broad for too little investment, and obviously it is important that we consult to get those details right. He also sought clarity as to whether the principles laid out would be upheld. The Minister for Business and Enterprise, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), made the Conservative position clear in an intervention, and I am happy to confirm that the Liberal Democrats stand behind these principles. I hope that the consensus across the three main parties on those principles will give the industry and tenants some welcome confidence, certainty and reassurance.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) was concerned about potential unintended consequences, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) about some of the issues still to be discussed when we come to the secondary legislation. It is right that these matters be discussed properly during the secondary legislation phase and that we get them right. The long string of amendments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West referred is testimony to the challenge of the detail we had to go into to get the issues right, and in that connection I would like to put on record my thanks to the officials who have worked tirelessly on this—not one of the more straightforward policy areas in the Department—over the last few months. I owe them a great deal of thanks for the wonderful job they have done.
	There are issues still to be wrangled over come the secondary legislation stage, but I do not know whether I will be the Minister or if somebody else will have the great joy of steering that through the House. These are debates for another day. Today we should just be pleased with the proposed primary legislation before us.
	Lords amendment 34 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 35 to 62, 86, 132 and136 to 141 agreed to.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Companies: duty to publish report on payment practices

Matthew Hancock: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 to 33, 63 to 85, 87 to 131, 133 to 135 and 142 to 193.

Matthew Hancock: With only a few days remaining in this Parliament, the Government continue to work tirelessly to make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business. We are proud of our record over this Parliament, including the 760,000 extra businesses, the 2.2 million extra jobs that business has created and the rising pay that has benefitted millions. This has been possible only because of our unstinting and unambiguous support for businesses. Last week’s Budget built on this record with a fundamental review of business rates, and last week we set out our intentions for using the new prompt payment transparency powers. The Bill takes this commitment to support small business further. It is the first ever small business Bill and I hope will shortly become the first ever small business Act.
	In the other place, the Bill was, as we would expect, subjected to careful and robust scrutiny, and I am grateful to Baroness Neville-Rolfe for ably steering it through the other place, where it was enhanced and improved. As part of that, several amendments were made, both substantive and technical. The Government supported all the successful amendments, and I hope that the House will agree them today. I shall go through each in turn, beginning with late payment. The Bill takes unprecedented steps to tackle late payment, so understandably the matter was debated in detail in this House and the other place. Late payment is a major issue for businesses large and small, and we are taking steps in the Bill and elsewhere to bring an end to the UK’s late payment culture once and for all.
	Transparency has a pivotal role to play. Clause 3 introduces a tough new prompt payment reporting requirement for the UK’s largest companies. In the other place, this clause was further strengthened by amendments 1 to 3, which insert a reference to performance on the face of the Bill and make express reference to late payment interest as an example of the type of information that will be included in the report. Beyond the Bill, we have strengthened the prompt payment codewith our announcement last month that30-day payment terms will be the norm of acceptable behaviour, with 60 days as the maximum in all but exceptional circumstances.The public sector will play its part, as 30-day terms are now legally required right down the public sector supply chain.
	The transparency measures in the Bill will shine a light on poor payment practices and make a company’s payment terms a reputational boardroom issue.We will drive a culture change to redress the current economic imbalanceof power between large companies and their suppliers. The amendments under consideration today will help to ensure suppliers are fairly compensated. We are determined to make 30-day terms the norm and 60 days the maximum acceptable payment terms. With this Bill, we will make unacceptable late payment a thing of the past.

John Howell: I very much welcome what the Minister said and I welcome the clause. When I was running a small business of my own, late payments bedevilled the business, and it was always the larger companies that were responsible for it. I am very glad that this amendment is being made.

Matthew Hancock: I am grateful for that intervention. I, too, have personal experience of poor payment performance having a massive impact on the businesses
	I worked in. Frankly, the late payment culture is a problem with our contract law. Good contract law means good payment against a contract. I think these transparency measures will have a significant impact, changing prompt payment from being an issue for finance directors to being an issue for the board. Through these transparency measures, we will not allow it to be deemed reasonable to pay late. I think that 60 days as a maximum and 30 days as a norm is a perfectly reasonable place to settle.

Toby Perkins: I fear that the Minister is rather over-selling the measures he proposes, welcome though they are. When he says that 30 days will be the norm and 60 days the exception and nothing beyond it, will he make clear what happens when businesses do not pay within that time frame? What sanctions will they face under this new regime?

Matthew Hancock: There are already sanctions under EU law relating to interest payments, but the transparency measures will crucially mean that we can have league tables of payment performance. The transparency in this area, alongside the public sector payment practices, will change the culture. We considered and debated in detail going further in changing contract law, but a contract is signed up to by both sides, and no practical amendment was put down to make it more binding than the existing law, which already says that 60 days should be the maximum unless both sides agree to it. Any contract, of course, has to be agreed to by both sides. It is a matter of finding a way to make this practical in law.
	Part 2 deals with regulatory reform, and the Bill brings forward significant measures to reduce the burden of regulation. The small business appeals champion will ensure that small businesses’ concerns about regulators are heard. There was extensive debate in the other place onwhether the Equality and Human Rights Commission should be excluded from these measures.
	We have always maintained that the EHRC shouldnotbe subject to the duty to appoint a champion and had originally considered that an exemption in secondary legislation would be sufficient. Concerns were expressed, however, that this might put at risk the EHRC’s “A” status as a national human rights institution. In the light of those concerns, we agreed to eliminate this potential risk by excluding the EHRC from scope of the duty on the face of the Bill.
	On the business impact target, the other place questioned the definition of voluntary and community bodies in clause 27. The Government listened to this concern andamendment 28simplifies the definition by removing the minimum membership threshold for certain smaller unincorporated associations. It also ensures that such bodies are not excluded from the proposed definitions of small and micro businesses later in the Bill by virtue of the size of their membership. Those are relatively technical changes. The principle of a business impact target to ensure that in future Governments are transparent—as this Government have been—about the impact of their overall regulatory approach on the burdens of business was well supported, and is made clear in the Bill.
	Part 7 deals with the transparency of companies. The provisions concerning the register of people with significant
	control also received close scrutiny. In the other place, ways of improving the details were suggested on all sides, and the Government listened and responded with a number of amendments. The Prime Minister made clear in October 2013 that the PSC register should be publicly accessible, and, in that spirit, Lords amendment 146removes unnecessary restriction from those who seek access to a company’s register. It was also proposed that the public register should state clearly where information has been protected from public disclosure, and Lords amendments 143 and 150address that proposal.
	Lords amendments 156 and 157 are designed to protect investors in certainnon-UK arrangements by treating them in the same way as English limited partnerships. In the other place, we committed ourselves to using the power in the Bill to increase the frequency with which PSC information is provided for the central register in 2017, about 12 months after the system goes live next year. That responds to calls for information in the central register to be more up to date, while giving companies a year in which to adjust to the new requirements. It will tie in with the transposition deadline for the EU’s fourth money laundering directive, which will shortly require all EU member states to hold “current” company beneficial ownership information in central registers. I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House for their engagement in improving those provisions.
	Part 10 contains important measures to improve insolvency and reform pre-pack administrations so that they cannot be abused. In Committee, concern was expressed about creditors’ ability to call face-to-face meetings in insolvency proceedings, particularly when numerous small creditors were involved. Lords amendments 71 to 84 enable a face-to-face meeting to be requested by 10% of the total number of creditors or contributories, with an absolute threshold of 10, as well as 10% by the value of their claims.
	Part 11 deals with employment. Lords amendment 87responds to the findings of the Francis report on NHS whistleblowing. The report unveiled a culture of silence in parts of the NHS, which in some cases went right to the top. We are determined to change that. The Bill already introduces a power to impose a requirement on prescribed persons to report annually on whistleblowing concerns that they receive, but we want to go further to protect whistleblowers. The amendment will enable the Secretary of State to prohibit NHS employers from discriminating against a job applicant on the grounds that the applicant appears to have blown the whistle previously. We want a culture of openness in the NHS. We want problems that are uncovered to be dealt with, and we want our brilliant NHS staff to be supported so that they can fulfil their vocation of care.
	It was suggested in the other place that cost orders should be included in the calculation of the penalty for late payment of employment tribunal awards, and that suggestion is reflected in Lords amendments 88 to 105. Lords amendments 106 to 122 ensure that the Scottish Government will have control over exit payments made by bodies within Scottish legislative and executive competence.
	In the other place, the Government introduced a small but important new measure onconcessionary coal. We are helping UK Coal to operate in a challenging environment. Without Lords amendment 123, we would not have the statutory power to ensure that workers at
	UK Coal Kellingley and Thoresby could continue to receive concessionary coal allowances, which would be wrong. The amendment gives us the power to meet this entitlement for those miners. It is right and shows our commitment to the staff at those collieries, and I hope it gets the support of the House.
	Alongside the robust examination of the Bill in the other place, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also scrutinised the Bill. The Government have made a number of amendments in response to these recommendations, as well as a number of technical and consequential amendments on the topics of credit data, cheque clearing,finance platforms, home business, child care, the PSC—people with significant control—register and insolvency proceedings. These are set out in the explanatory notes on amendments.
	In all, these amendments strengthen the Bill, the Bill will strengthen business, and strong business will strengthen Britain. The amendments before us have the full support of Government and I hope will have the support of the House.

Toby Perkins: The Minister questioned whether the amendments will have the support of the Opposition. They will do, of course; we proposed a good deal of them, so it would be rather foolish for us not to be supporting them at this stage. The Minister is right to say the Bill arrives back in this House in stronger order than it left it. It looks far more like the kind of small business Bill I was talking about back in July 2014 when I said the Government ought to be taking far greater steps, and I agree with the Minister that the Bill is improved.
	We said steps needed to be taken to strengthen enforcement of the compensatory award in employment tribunal cases. We are pleased the Government have today announced a naming and shaming programme that will ensure exposure of businesses that do not pay compensatory awards identified by a tribunal. We said that insolvency creditors meetings were an important part of our world-class regime and we are glad the Government accepted our amendment on that. We are glad, too, that the Government decided to exempt the Equality and Human Rights Commission from the work of the small business appeals champion—although not from the growth duty section of the Deregulation Bill, as we called for at the time. On late payment as well, we have been saying for a long time that stronger action was needed. I am therefore bound to say that the fact that these are issues Her Majesty’s Opposition have been raising, from abuse of zero-hours contracts to late payments to small firms, and from non-payment of the national minimum wage to supplier pay and stay deals—an area of pub company legislation we have already discussed—shows that it is the Opposition who have been leading the way, and the Government have been following us reluctantly.
	It rather undermines the charge that Labour is anti-business when the Government keep taking action in so many of the ways we have called for. I know the Government have form in this regard; they used to suggest UKIP was mad before they adopted its No. 1 policy. However, we support the principle that the Government should be willing to listen and take action where they have got things wrong, and we think the Bill before us today is a good deal stronger as a result of that.
	I want to take up the Minister’s challenge on late payments. As I said in my intervention, he is overplaying his hand when he suggests that the measures brought forward, welcome though they are, signal the end of egregious late payment practices. The steps the Minister has taken on the public sector are welcome. Particularly at the time of the bank-induced global economic crisis, the previous Labour Government took significant steps to ensure the public sector paid on time and this is putting that on to a more permanent footing, which is a positive step. However, the Minister suggested that the transparency he is introducing will create a reputational risk that means businesses and boardrooms around the country will think carefully before paying late. While the way this is going to be marketed will be different, many of the transparency measures proposed here are currently available if people choose to look. There has been no reputational risk for many of the companies that have operated in that way.
	In response to what the Minister said a few minutes ago, the truth is that no new sanctions have been proposed. He said that businesses could avail themselves of the sanctions in the EU late payment directive, but they have been able to do that for several years. If a major business chooses to say, “We’ll supply you, but our terms are 90 days”, a small business will have the choice of whether to deal with it on those terms or not at all. That means that nothing has changed, and we are still in exactly the same position.
	The steps that the Government are proposing on late payment are fine, as far as they go, but this is a missed opportunity. I am willing to predict that, in the next Parliament, we will not consider this issue to have been dealt with and that, at some point in the next four or five years, we will all be back here discussing late payment again and saying that something must be done, that we must change the culture, that we need to get across to businesses that late payments are unacceptable, and that we need greater transparency so that small businesses know what they are letting themselves in for. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) stated powerfully at the Federation of Small Businesses conference last week that late payments are one of the great scandals in our economy. Small businesses are disadvantaged by the practice, and more should have been done.
	Clause 3 initially created a duty for companies to publish only their payment policies. We have consistently argued that publishing policies is not enough and that small businesses also need concrete information on the performance in practice, and not just what is written in a policy book. We tabled amendments in Committee in the Commons and on Report in the Lords that would have created a compulsory reporting regime to ensure that large companies’ reporting records would be open to quarterly scrutiny with automatic interest paid for late payment. The Government voted down our proposals on both occasions. The Minister said a few minutes ago that no practicable proposals had been tabled in this regard, but that is not true. We tabled specific proposals that would have put the late payment directive on a statutory footing. He might have decided that he did not want to support our proposals, but it is not true to say that they did not exist.
	However, we are pleased that the Government have made some concessions and accepted our fundamental argument that information on performance, as well as policies, must be published. This will allow large companies to be judged by their deeds, not just by their words. However, we believe that there should be a financial backstop, such as an automatic interest payment or a fines regime, as outlined in our proposals. So it remains to be seen how effective the Bill will be. It is stronger as a result of the interventions by the Labour Opposition but more could have been done and, regrettably, we will have to return to this issue in the next Parliament.
	The Bill establishes small business appeals champions, whose role will be to watch non-economic Government regulators and encourage them to improve the impact on business of their policies, their processes and their approach on appeals and complaints. In broad terms we welcome this idea, but many bodies have questioned how the champions will work in practice and what relationship they will have with the general growth duty in the Deregulation Bill. We welcome the fact that the Government have taken up our argument that the guidance to the small business appeals champions in relation to the exercise of their functions should be laid before Parliament for full scrutiny and debate.
	On Lords amendment 25, we are pleased that the Government have acceded to our demand that the Equality and Human Rights Commission be excluded from any of the regulatory provisions in the Bill. This will relate specifically to the work of the small business appeals champions.
	On the subject of creditor meetings, I should like to draw to the attention of the House the donation made to my office of employment support from R3, the insolvency regulator. The intention of the original Bill was to end once and for all the practice of insolvency practitioners holding physical creditor meetings in all types of insolvency procedures. We felt that that was a mistake and that it could disengage creditors and weaken the strength of the world-leading insolvency regime that we have here in the UK. We very much welcome the fact that the Government have listened to some of the specific proposals we made on ensuring that the threshold for a creditors meeting should be changed to
	“(a) 10% in value of the creditors;
	(b) 10% in number of the creditors;
	(c) 10 creditors.”
	We think that is a much stronger amendment, providing the support that that industry needs to ensure that it continues to provide a service that gets record amounts of money back to creditors and is also successful in saving jobs and businesses.
	Let me deal with Lords amendments 88, 89, 92, 93, 100 and 101. We raised several concerns about the Government’s proposals for employment tribunals in this Bill. For example, we were concerned that fines could be levied to businesses that have not paid the compensatory award; the business could pay the fine but would not necessarily have paid that award. We are pleased that the Government have conceded and made things a bit better, but, again, they have not gone as far as we would like in covering that issue. An amendment has been accepted that includes any amount the tribunal
	has ordered the employer to pay the worker in respect of legal costs within the definition of the financial award owed to the claimant for the purposes of the financial penalty for non-payment. That will ensure that an employer must comply with both the employment tribunal award for compensation and any order in respect of costs to avoid a penalty.
	So we feel strongly that the Bill arrives back here and will pass into law a good deal stronger than it arrived. We feel strongly that the steps we have proposed and which have been accepted by the Government show that in many cases Government interventions can very positively support the successful running of our business and of our economy. They can ensure that workers are supported in the workplace, and they can help us to build an economy in which the prosperity of the nation is shared among the many, not the few. In so doing, they can also ensure that the rules of the game are sufficiently fair so that small businesses and big businesses are both able to compete, coexist and thrive. On that basis, this House can be very pleased with the work it has done in amending the Bill.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 2 to 33, 63 to 85, 87 to 131, 133 to 135, and 142 to 193 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 85, 123 and 133.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

David Gauke: I beg to move,
	That this House approves, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in Budget 2015 and Autumn Statement 2014, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook (2015) and Fiscal Sustainability Report (2014), which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.
	As in previous years, the Government inform the Commission of the UK’s economic and budgetary position in line with our commitments under the EU’s stability and growth pact. The Government plan to submit their convergence programme, with the approval of both Houses. The convergence programme explains the Government’s medium-term fiscal policies, as set out in the 2014 autumn statement and Budget 2015, and also includes the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts. As such, it is based entirely on previously published documents that have been presented to Parliament.
	With the Budget on 18 March this year, and the debate much earlier than normal because of the electoral timetable, I appreciate that the time to prepare for this debate has been particularly tight. Against that backdrop the Treasury has made every effort to provide early copies of the convergence programme document in advance of the debate today. The document makes it clear that since 2010 the Government’s long-term economic plan has delivered the stability and security needed to build a resilient economy: the UK had the fastest growth among G7 economies in 2014; employment has reached its highest ever level; and inflation—the consumer prices index—is at a record low. Debt as a share of GDP is now forecast to start falling in 2015- 16, meeting the debt target set out in 2010.
	There are differing views on the value of submitting that information to the Commission. To be clear, as a result of the UK’s opt out from the single currency, no sanctions can be imposed on the UK as part of this process. The UK’s record is a good one, and there is some value in sharing the UK experience across Europe and demonstrating that there is no conflict between central fiscal consolidation on the one hand and robust economic growth on the other.
	Last week’s Budget set out the Government’s assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position. GDP grew 2.6% in 2014, which is the strongest annual growth since 2007 and the fastest in the G7. Debt is forecast to fall as a share of GDP in 2015-16, meeting the debt target set out by the Government in 2010. Borrowing is forecast to be lower in every year to 2018-19 than at autumn statement 2014, and the public finances are forecast to achieve a larger surplus in 2018-19. Falling debt and improving borrowing mean that consolidation can end a year earlier than planned, and that spending will grow in line with GDP in 2019-20. Budget 2015 builds on existing reforms to create a dynamic, regionally balanced and stronger economy. Latest data show that employment is at its highest ever level, with 1.9 million more people in work since the current Government came to power. Business investment
	has increased by 25.6% since the first quarter of 2010, and the UK will have the joint lowest rate of corporation tax in the G20 from April 2015.
	Budget 2015 sets out a significant package of measures for a truly national recovery by investing in infrastructure, housing, and science and innovation across the whole of the UK, and building a northern powerhouse. Fuel duty will be frozen for another year. The Government will substantially reduce oil and gas taxes to improve competitiveness in the North sea. Further support for energy-intensive industries will begin in 2015-16. A comprehensive review of business rates has been launched, and there will be a radical simplification of the tax system by abolishing the annual tax return.
	Restoring growth and competitiveness across the EU is critical. The euro area outlook is for slow, but positive growth, supported by lower oil prices and European Central Bank sovereign quantitative easing. The European Commission’s own forecasts from February this year predict growth in 2015 of just 1.7% in the EU as a whole, and 1.3% in the euro area. Some 45% of our exports are destined for the EU and seven of the UK’s top 10 trading partners are EU member states.
	The UK recovery has been based on a number of policy responses: supportive monetary policy, clear and credible fiscal consolidation, and structural reform, all of which must mutually reinforce each other. Although the challenges across member states differ, countries across the EU need to consider a similar response, and these processes of European co-ordination, including the sharing of information through the shared reporting of fiscal and reform progress, can play a part in making that happen.
	Much of the answer lies in national level reforms such as creating flexible labour markets. Clearly, the European Semester has a key role to play in encouraging member states to make ambitious reform commitments, and the UK has an interest in making those reforms happen. However, an ambitious EU-level reform agenda is also a key part of the equation and an essential counterpart to national level reforms.
	In conclusion, the Government are committed to ensuring that, in line with section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, this House approves the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme. Following the House’s approval of that assessment, the Government will submit the convergence programme to the European Commission, which is expected to make its recommendations to all EU member states in late May. Those recommendations will then be considered by ECOFIN council and agreed by Heads of State or Governments at the European Council.
	The convergence programme explains the Government’s medium-term fiscal policies as set out in the 2014 autumn statement and Budget 2015, and also includes the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts. As such it is based entirely on previously published documents that have been presented to Parliament. Unlike other member states, the UK does not submit its Budget to the Commission for approval, and cannot be subject to any action or sanctions as a result of its commitments under the stability and growth pact. I look forward to the debate.

Cathy Jamieson: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the motion on behalf of the Opposition. Looking back over the corresponding debate last year, I was interested to see that the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), told the House that, due to the tight timetable,
	“the Treasury has made every effort to provide early copies of the convergence programme document in advance of today’s debate.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 851.]
	I acknowledge that today the Financial Secretary indicated the difficulties in providing the document in a timely fashion. I received a copy only on Friday. At more than 250 pages long, it was perhaps not ideal, but it certainly made for interesting weekend reading.

David Gauke: Does the hon. Lady recognise that many of those pages were familiar, having been in the Budget documents? No doubt, by Friday, she had already read and digested all the Budget documentation.

Cathy Jamieson: I was just about to say that I know the Minister is courteous and accommodating, so I understand that the delay might have been unavoidable. As he quite often does, he has anticipated a number of the questions and points I intended to raise—indeed, the whole thrust of my remarks is just how familiar some of the documents and the issues they cover are, given that they have been discussed already and are likely to be debated again tomorrow. I hope to be able to do the subject justice this afternoon.
	Some things have changed since last year. Looking across the Chamber, I see that, unlike last time, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is not in his customary place. I know what a keen interest he normally takes in European matters, having had the pleasure of his company in many European Committees, including one only this morning. As the Minister last year observed, the hon. Gentleman
	“could go on for hours and hours on that particular subject.” —[Official Report, 30 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 854.]
	Given his absence from the Chamber this afternoon, the debate might be shorter than was anticipated.
	As the Financial Secretary observed, once again we have been provided with a barrage of figures, accompanied by bouts of backslapping, boasts and congratulations from the Government to themselves. The overarching theme of the document is to show just how well the Government have done—and, no doubt, the Government would say that is entirely in order from their perspective. However, the document—and to some extent this debate—is something of an exercise in repackaging. Bits of the Red Book and bits of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” are spliced together with a new binding—a theme and variations on the Budget, except there is little theme and scant variation. Although the Government can try to repackage the Budget, I would argue that they cannot mask some of the problems we have already raised and the reality of the failure.
	Part of me thinks that the Minister’s tune, like the Chancellor’s last week, strikes a pretty discordant note, because the truth is that, under even the mildest scrutiny, the Government’s economic credibility behaves like a
	sand castle in the waves, melting away before our eyes. Attempts have been made, through choice language and careful presentation, to obscure the impact that this Government have had, and continue to have, on the people and public services of this country. The theme that runs through the Red Book and the report we are discussing today is that everyone can put away their umbrella, because the sun is shining, people across the country are better off, and we should all be very grateful as we walk hand in hand into the sunlit uplands of peace and prosperity. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
	I hear the cheers from the Government Benches. Hon. Members may wish to wait for the next part of my speech before further congratulating the Government. The picture is very different for the millions of people across the country who are still firmly mired in the slough of despond because of what has happened to their lives. For example, there are those who are £1,600 a year worse off since this Government took office, or those who are £1,100 a year worse off as a result of the tax and benefit changes made by this Government, including the rise in VAT. The hundreds and thousands of people across the country, including many in my constituency, who are forced to rely on food banks—a persistent and pernicious feature of Tory Britain—are not feeling the benefits of the recovery. For them the sun is not shining. They can see through the smoke and mirrors that the Government use to try to paint a glowing picture.
	To judge only by the language and tone of the document in which the Government claim to have laid the foundations for a strong economy and a fairer society, one might be forgiven for thinking that the worst was over. In some ways that is the most troubling aspect, because we know that the worst is yet to come. The Chancellor may have shuffled the numbers around, but no shuffling can conceal the truth about the Government’s economic plans. As the OBR said, the Budget will mean
	“ a much sharper squeeze on real spending in 2016-17 and 2017-18 than anything seen over the past five years”,
	and a
	“sharp acceleration in the pace of implied real cuts to day-to-day spending on public services”.
	Perhaps I do not share the Chancellor’s or the Minister’s sunny disposition, or perhaps I am more in touch with the reality of the lives of people across the country. I do not see much fairness in the document before us or in the Government’s approach. The cuts of more than 5% planned for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are twice the size of any annual cuts in this Parliament. That has resulted in a somewhat erratic trajectory, described by the OBR as a “rollercoaster ride” of public spending. Remarkably, for all the cuts yet to come, the Government continue to repeat the tired mantra that “we are all in this together.”
	That is not borne out by the evidence. Wage growth has been stagnant over the course of the Parliament. Energy bills, on the other hand, have gone up by around £300 over the past five years. Although the Government boast of more jobs and high rates of employment, we have to consider what kind of jobs these are. Many are low paid. For evidence of that, one need look no further than the state of the nation’s tax receipts. Income tax receipts and national insurance contributions are £97 billion lower over the course of the Parliament than was forecast in 2010. Jobs are often insecure and uncertain, typified by the over-reliance on zero-hours contracts. Alongside
	the proliferation of insecure, low paid jobs, the wealthiest have been handed a £3 billion tax cut, while the poorest have lost out disproportionately from the cuts to tax receipts and the increase in VAT.

Simon Kirby: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Cathy Jamieson: I will give way in a moment.
	Labour has announced today that under no circumstances will we increase VAT in the next Parliament. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is about to say something from his Government’s point of view. Perhaps he will give the same assurance.

Simon Kirby: As the hon. Lady mentioned income tax, I was thinking of the millions of people taken out of tax and the 27 million people benefiting from the increases in the personal allowance, many of whom, in my constituency, are among the lowest paid. It is all very well to say that we are helping the rich, but we are helping the low paid even more.

Cathy Jamieson: Under a Labour Government, there would be a new 10p starting rate for tax, and we would also reverse the tax cut for millionaires, which this Government gave and which by no stretch of the imagination can be seen to be fair. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman did not mention VAT. I assume the Minister does not want to intervene at this point to give me an assurance that his Government would not raise VAT in the next Parliament.
	It is worth looking back and considering that this is the first Parliament since the early 1920s in which the average person in work will be worse off at the end than they were at the beginning, and the poorest are worse off than the rest. Last week Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies spelt it out in language that I think everyone, including the Government, can understand:
	“Looking only at changes implemented by the coalition the poorest have seen the biggest proportionate losses.”
	That sounds pretty conclusive to me: the poor have lost the most.
	The Minister has given his account of what will happen, but I think that he has been pretty coy about what is really in store for the future. What about the £12 billion of welfare cuts that the Government have committed to? They have already overspent on their welfare plans by £25 billion over the course of this Parliament, while at the same time imposing the unfair and iniquitous bedroom tax, so it is difficult to see how that £12 billion squeeze will be achieved.
	When interviewed by Andrew Neil a few days ago, the Minister gallantly held the Government line and steadfastly refused to say where the cuts will be made. While we can perhaps applaud his loyal and resolute nature, he really should be more forthcoming about just where the axe will fall next, because voters across the country will be wondering what the Government are keeping from us. What more can he tell us today? He appears still not to want to say anything about VAT, so I will move on and deal with the Government’s pretentions to fiscal credibility.
	For most people, a Government who are fiscally credible are a Government who meet their own fiscal targets. The budget deficit will be around £90 billion this year, and next year’s budget, far from being balanced,
	as was promised in 2010, is projected to show a £75 billion deficit. Meanwhile, public sector net debt will be £217 billion higher in 2015-16 than was projected in 2010. How can the Government claim to be credible when they have missed their own targets by such wide margins? The end result of all that failure, all those missed targets and broken promises, is even bigger spending cuts.
	As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor pointed out last week, it really has come to something when a Government are forced to boast that spending as a proportion of GDP will fall only to 1964 levels—levels last seen over 50 years ago. It is not a pretty picture. Close scrutiny of the OBR tables shows that 2018 spending, on the historical comparative measure that the OBR uses for day-to-day spending on public services, will fall to its lowest level since 1938. Despite their best efforts, the Tories are still the party that wants to take us back to the 1930s.
	The Red Book is trying to perform a delicate balancing act; it is trying to assure us that the worst is over and that stability has been restored while at the same time plotting deeper cuts than anything we have seen in this Parliament. I think that it is seeking simply to paper over the cracks of failure and evade the debris of broken promises. It is for that reason that we will be voting against the Government’s motion today.

David Gauke: We seem to have entered day five of the Budget debate. Let me make one or two brief points in response to the hon. Lady. First, let us remember what the state of the economy was in 2010, and the state of the public finances. Our borrowing levels were over 10% of GDP, which is a peacetime record, and we were forecast to have the highest level of borrowing in the G20. Over half of that amount has now been dealt with, but we have further to go and further steps are needed to deal with borrowing. That is why this House overwhelmingly voted for the charter for fiscal responsibility, which means that the cyclical current budget will be balanced by 2017-18. That is a target that those in all parts of the House signed up to, including Labour Members, but we heard nothing from them during the Budget debates, or today, about how they would meet that ambition. Whereas my party has set out our plans for finding £12 billion from welfare cuts, £13 billion from departmental spending and £5 billion from tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning, we have had no such indications from Labour. There is a huge hole where there should be an Opposition party policy.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman constantly talks about cuts—very unpleasant cuts that are going to affect a lot of poor people—but the real problem is an income problem, because we have a tax gap of £120 billion through evasion and avoidance that the Government refuse to recognise to its full extent. If we looked at the income side and made sure we collected the tax that should be paid, then we could address the problems with the deficit—if they are serious problems—and, at the same time, not inflict cuts on poor people.

David Gauke: The Government do not recognise the £120 billion figure, nor did the previous Government, and nor, as far as I am aware, does any statistician. One individual has put that methodology forward, but Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has set out in some detail the numerous flaws within it. As for tax, I agree that it is important that we get the money in. It is worth pointing out that the yield from HMRC’s activities has gone up from £17 billion a year to £26 billion a year under this Government. We have a proud record of collecting more in tax, and we will maintain it.
	I do not intend to detain the House for long on this occasion. The fact is that this Government are getting the deficit down, while living standards are going up, employment is going up, and we are fixing the mess that we inherited. Is there more to do? Yes, of course there is, and we hope to have the opportunity to address that over the next five years.

Question put,
	The House divided:
	Ayes 300, Noes 199.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House approves, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in Budget 2015 and Autumn Statement 2014, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook (2015) and Fiscal Sustainability Report (2014), which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.

Counter-terrorism

James Brokenshire: I beg to move,
	That the draft Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 12 March, be approved.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this we shall take the following motion:
	That the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 406), dated 26 February 2015, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 February, be approved.

James Brokenshire: This secondary legislation has been brought forward to implement measures in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. The measures were debated by the House very recently and the primary legislation was enacted only on 12 February. During Parliament’s consideration of the legislation, there was widespread recognition of the threat from terrorism and broad support for the measures in the Bill. The instruments bring to life two of those important provisions. In passing the legislation in February, the House accepted the need for these measures.
	I should inform the House that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered both the instruments we are debating. I place on the record my appreciation for the forbearance that was shown by the Chair and members of the Committee in considering the instruments outside the normal time scales. The Committee cleared the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015, but drew the attention of both Houses of Parliament to the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015. I shall return to the issues that were highlighted by the Joint Committee later in my contribution.
	It may help the House in its consideration of the instruments if I briefly outline what the Government seek to achieve by them and why we have brought them forward at this time. The regulations have been brought forward in respect of part 5 of the 2015 Act, which is concerned with reducing the risk of people being drawn into terrorism. During the recent debates on the primary legislation, there was a very informed debate on the duty that is imposed by section 26 of the Act, which is known as the Prevent duty. The regulations are crucial to the effective implementation of the new duty.
	The purpose of the regulations is threefold. First, they amend schedules 6 and 7 to the 2015 Act to add Scottish bodies to the list of authorities that are subject to the Prevent duty and to those that are listed as partners to local authority panels, which are required to be in place by section 36. Those panels form part of the Channel programme—the deradicalisation programme—in England and Wales, and Prevent Professional Concerns in Scotland, which are programmes designed to provide support to those who are vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.
	Secondly, the regulations make a number of amendments to the Act that are consequential on adding those Scottish bodies. In particular they ensure that Scottish
	further and higher education institutions will have the same requirement to have particular regard to the need to ensure freedom of speech and the importance of academic freedom while complying with the Prevent duty as their counterparts in England and Wales. It has always been the Government’s intention that provisions in part 5 of the Act would apply to bodies in Scotland. We have consulted Scottish Ministers, and they are supportive of adding Scottish bodies to the duty.
	Thirdly and finally, the regulations will bring into effect guidance issued under section 29(1) of the Act for specified authorities in carrying out the Prevent duty. The guidance sets out the detail of what that duty will mean in practice for authorities subject to it, and seeks to explain the steps that should be taken to best secure compliance.
	The House will recall that the Government introduced an amendment to the Bill to ensure that the guidance will only take effect following Parliament’s approval. During the passage of the Bill, a formal public consultation on the draft guidance took place, and hon. Members will have read the summary of responses referenced in the explanatory memorandum. More than 1,700 responses were received during the consultation, and another 300 people were reached over the course of five events held in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff, and Edinburgh. The responses enabled a thorough revision to take place, and the results of that revision are now before the House.
	There are two versions of the guidance: one for authorities in England and Wales, and a separate one for authorities in Scotland. Following discussions with the Scottish Government, the Government decided that separate guidance that specifically addresses the particular circumstances of Scotland would be more helpful than trying to address those circumstances through one set of guidance. The Scottish guidance has also been subject to consultation through a targeted process undertaken by the Scottish Government.
	Hon. Members will have noted that neither document addresses the issue of managing speakers and events in further and higher education institutions. How universities and colleges balance the Prevent duty with the need to secure freedom of speech and have regard to the importance of academic freedom is an extremely important issue that requires careful consideration. On account of that, the Government amended the legislation to ensure that institutions pay particular regard to the importance of academic freedom and freedom of speech when complying with the Prevent duty. As I made clear during the passage of the Bill, that freedom is important in challenging extremist views and providing almost an antidote to some of the extremism that might take place were it not for that challenge. We shall use the time before the duty commences to produce further guidance on managing speakers and events in further and higher education institutions, and it will be for the next Government to bring that to Parliament early in the next Session for the approval of both Houses.

William Cash: In the context of human rights legislation, and particularly the Human Rights Act 1998 and the charter of fundamental rights, which is increasingly being brought in by the European Court of Justice, does the Minister believe that these proposals, and many aspects of the Counter-Terrorism
	and Security Act 2015, will survive against those in the human rights lobby who are determined to put human rights ahead even of the prevention of terrorism?

James Brokenshire: Yes, I am confident of that. Obviously, we considered the implications of the Human Rights Act when the primary legislation was taken through this House. That does not necessarily mean that it will not be subject to legal challenge—we have legal challenge for all forms of legislation—but we are confident about the way the measure has been brought forward, and it touches on the competency of member states in national security issues. I recognise the long-standing and consistent approach that my hon. Friend has highlighted, and I am sure he will continue to highlight it to ensure that we get legislation in the right place and properly consider human rights challenges and other issues in that regard. I welcome his intervention.
	As for the guidance itself, it is essential that it is accurate and workable for all institutions. It is not the Government’s intention that the duty in respect of higher education and further education institutions should commence for those sectors until guidance on speakers and events has been published. This, as I have explained, will of course be for the next Government to carry through.
	It is important to take the opportunity to remind the House of the purpose of the new duty and its importance. The emergence of ISIL and the number of people—particularly vulnerable, young people—who have misguidedly travelled to Syria and Iraq present a heightened threat to our national security. The intelligence agencies tell us that the threat is now worse than at any time since 9/11. It is serious and it is growing. The threat has changed and so must our response.
	As part of that response, we need to continue to combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism, and to prevent people from being drawn on to that path. The Prevent duty will ensure that such activity is consistent across the country and in all bodies whose staff work on the front line with those at risk from radicalisation.

Stephen Doughty: Will the Minister place on record his support for the work being done by a group in my constituency to tackle the root causes and extremist ideologies that have been affecting people in Cardiff? They are doing fantastic work as part of the Movement for Change “Make a Choice, See a Change” campaign online and with their peers to combat ideology that may have affected some people in their community.

James Brokenshire: I commend the hon. Gentleman for highlighting the work of community groups in his constituency. Some incredible people and organisations are standing up against terrorism, highlighting the peaceful nature of the Islamic religion and challenging some of the ideological underpinning that has been perversely twisted by those who support ISIL and other terrorist and extremist organisations. It is the work of community, family and people in the locality and the neighbourhood that is making a real difference in standing together and confronting and combating pernicious ideology. This is
	a generational struggle. Bringing forward the guidance and the Prevent duty underlines the important responsibility we all have—government, community, family and individuals—to stand together to ensure that a clear and robust message is given. I know that good work is taking place in Cardiff and in many other parts of the country to do precisely that. I welcome the opportunity to put that on the record this afternoon.
	I would like to turn now to the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 introduced temporary exclusion orders, which enable the Secretary of State to disrupt and control the return to the UK of certain British citizens suspected of engaging in terrorism-related activity abroad. TEOs also enable the Secretary of State to impose certain requirements on individuals on their return to the UK.
	The House will recall that the Government introduced two stages of judicial oversight of this power during the passage of the Bill. The first stage requires the Secretary of State to seek permission from the courts prior to imposing a TEO or, in exceptional circumstances, to seek such permission from the courts retrospectively. The second stage provides a statutory review mechanism to enable the TEO subject to challenge the imposition of the order and any obligations imposed on their return to the UK. That judicial oversight was introduced in response to concerns raised by right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House, and was welcomed during consideration of the amendments made in another place.
	The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 are required to implement this judicial oversight in England and Wales. The instrument introduces the court rules for temporary exclusion order proceedings in the High Court and appeals to the Court of Appeal, which are essential to ensure we are able to operate the appropriate safeguards for this power. I have already mentioned that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported this instrument and drawn it to the attention of the House.
	The Government have acknowledged the issues raised by the Joint Committee and committed to updating the rules by an amending instrument as soon as practicable. That amending instrument will be made by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, and I can assure the House that the process for doing so is already under way. However, as the Government made clear in their response to the Joint Committee, we do not consider that the drafting errors acknowledged render the rules invalid or inoperable. The court rules are required in order to implement the important judicial oversight of TEOs in England and Wales.

William Cash: My hon. Friend can probably guess that I am about to ask a question similar to my last one about judicial oversight, the charter and human rights legislation. I am sure he recognises that there is a potentiality, if not a certainty, that these matters will be challenged, particularly the exclusion orders. Does he not think that there is still time to consider imposing a restriction on those who have repudiated allegiance to the UK to prevent their returning to the country?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend tempts me into a broader debate that extends beyond the statutory instruments and deals with preventing from returning
	to this country people who have engaged in activity contrary to the interests of this country. This issue was considered at length in this House and the other place, and it was determined that TEOs were the appropriate mechanism, considering our international obligations and the issues he highlighted of legal challenge and ensuring an effective mechanism. We judge that the TEOs provide this, but we recognise the potential for challenge. Indeed, we have built in an oversight process through the scrutiny of the judiciary.
	I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend that the rules are based on those used for similar preventive measures, such as terrorism prevention and investigation measures, some asset-seizing legislation and closed material proceedings, and therefore are based on the experience and judicial oversight applied to those rules. I hope that gives him some assurance of the careful consideration we have given to the rules.

William Cash: I raised this question precisely because of my concerns about how the judiciary is effectively subordinated to the European Court of Justice, which overrides not only our Supreme Court but this Parliament. On matters concerning TPIMs, control orders and the rest of it, the Minister knows that people who should never have been allowed out have continued their stay.

James Brokenshire: I can assure my hon. Friend that TPIMs are robust and that we have taken steps to ensure their legal compliance. That was considered when they were introduced and during the passage of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. I fear that I am straying from the statutory instruments, but I recognise his challenge and assure him that our consideration of the rules reflected our experience of similar orders and some of the operational legal practice that the rules intend to operate.
	The regulations are needed to implement effectively the Prevent duty across England, Wales and Scotland, which ultimately will help the Government and law-enforcement agencies to keep the country safe from terrorism, and the court rules govern proceedings that are essential to ensure appropriate safeguards for the TEO. With those comments, I hope the House will be minded to support the instruments.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. It is important to understand the measures in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill and the implementation of the Prevent agenda in the context, I think, of some of the muddle the Government have created for themselves over the past five years. In 2010, they inherited 93 Prevent priority areas and in one year they cut them to 23. They then restored funding to seven areas, including Greenwich, to bring us back up to 30 priority areas. From next year, the Government will be increasing the number of priority areas to 50 and in their impact assessment on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, the Government revealed that they expect this to rise to 90 areas over the next few years. In two years, then, we may be back where we started five years ago, but we have lost seven years thanks to the muddle coming from the Government.
	That was not the only poor decision that the Government made, either. They reduced funding for Prevent from £17 million to £5.1 million a year, but not all of that £5.1 million was spent. In one year, just £1.6 million was spent and overall, since the Government re-launched the Prevent agenda, just 40% of the money allocated to local authorities was spent.
	Prevent is meant to be a national and comprehensive strategy, yet last year just four areas delivered Prevent projects. We have seen particular failings from some Government Departments. The 2011 Prevent review identified the need to support schools in counter-radicalisation. The Department for Education committed to an 11-point plan, none of which seems to have been delivered.
	The Home Secretary is threatening schools and universities with contempt of court proceedings if they do not implement the Prevent agenda, while I think the Government have serious questions to answer about their failures to deliver on their own commitments. Some of us believe that the Government need to get their own house in order before challenging other institutions and public bodies.
	What is also a matter of real concern is that, overall, the Government appear to have little hard evidence about what Prevent work is going on or how effectively it has been delivered. We know that the Home Office’s chief economist refused to sign off the impact assessment to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill on that basis.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Lady made this point about the impact assessment the other day. Will she acknowledge that the matter to which she refers is in the regulations before us this afternoon and that there is also the Scottish duty? She has completely mischaracterised this point.

Diana Johnson: I know that when we discussed the primary legislation around the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, it was reported that the chief economist at the Home Office did say what I suggested, so the Minister has not refuted the statement I made. We now know from the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill that there has been recognition that the Prevent agenda matters and needs to be supported.
	Yesterday, of course, the Home Secretary went even further, talking about introducing a counter-extremism strategy, although I understand that such a strategy has not been published and there is not much detail about it. Today, however, the Home Secretary has made several claims. She first promised to work with communities in a way that different parts of different communities around the country have been requesting for some time. She promised that she would be very clear about distinguishing between Islam and Islamic extremism. All that is very welcome and, I have to say to the Minister, about time too.
	The guidance in front of us does not, however, go as far as it should in meeting the pledges the Home Secretary made yesterday, but I do want to say some positive things about it. As the Minister knows, the original guidance was put out to consultation over the Christmas recess period, and I think improvements have been made to it. The document is less prescriptive throughout, so it can plausibly be said to be introducing the risk-based
	approach that the Government said they wanted from the outset. I welcome, too, the introduction of a clear set of commitments on what the Home Office will do to support the implementation of the Prevent agenda. This has been clearly lacking, I think, since the Prevent agenda was re-launched in 2011.
	Let me briefly mention Scotland. It is good to see the inclusion of the Scottish organisations. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the consultation with the Scottish Government and the inclusion of the various Scottish organisations, but I should like to ask him a question. There is separate guidance for the Scottish organisations, but I understand that it was not issued for full consultation. The Minister said earlier that there was a targeted process for the consultation. Will he explain what he meant by that?

William Cash: Would the hon. Lady be good enough to tell us to what extent, if any, she has taken the opportunity to discover the views of the Scottish nationalists on this question? Has she had any indication of their views? They are not even here, but I am sure that she can provide us with a fairly good guess as to what they might think. We did hear Alex Salmond suggest the other day that they would be putting their foot down on matters that they thought were important to Scotland, in their own terms.

Diana Johnson: During the Bill’s passage, as the hon. Gentleman will know, members of the Scottish National party made a great deal of fuss about the involvement of the Scottish Government in consultation about the public institutions in Scotland that would be affected by the Prevent agenda. I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the level of consultation that had taken place with the Scottish Government. I may be presuming too much, but perhaps the absence of members of the Scottish National party this afternoon means that they are fully content with what is being proposed. Obviously we must wait and see, but there is no one here to put an alternative case.
	Let me now deal with some of the areas in which the revisions of the guidance have not addressed some of the shortcomings that I considered to be present in the first draft of the document. I believe that they have been raised both here and in the other place, and also in the responses to the consultation. The Minister said that there had been more than 1,700 responses, which is a very large number.
	The first of those areas is the definition of extremism, which remains unchanged in the guidance. It is still defined as, basically, “an opposition to British values”. The failure to define extremism is central to other problems that the Prevent agenda encounters, as was recognised in the 2011 Prevent review. Front-line professionals do not properly understand what extremism is. There is considerable evidence of that poor understanding. A survey conducted for the Department for Education in 2011 revealed that 70% of schools felt that they needed more training and information in order to build resilience to radicalisation. That was picked up repeatedly in the consultation responses, and it is also a clear issue in relation to the Prevent agenda. We know that only 20% of the people who have been
	referred to the Channel programme have been accepted. The overwhelming majority are incorrectly referred, because front-line professionals have misunderstood the nature of the issues involved.
	It was a failure of the Government not to fulfil the commitments made in the 2011 Prevent review to improve front-line understanding of extremism, and it is disappointing that they are repeating their mistake by failing to include in the guidance either a detailed explanation of what constitutes extremism, or an explanation of how a risk assessment for extremism should be conducted. In Committee, I gave the analogy of child abuse: we will combat the issue only when we fully recognise it for what it is.
	The failure to define extremism properly also means that the guidance fails to live up to the promise that the Home Secretary made yesterday to distinguish clearly between Islam and Islamic extremism. The definition of Islamic extremism is limited: an Islamic extremist is described as someone who is angry with the west and resents western intervention in wars in Muslim countries. The guidance talks of a “them and us” rhetoric. That ignores the fact that the majority of the victims of Islamic extremists are Muslims, and the fact that those who are most likely to encounter it in the United Kingdom are Muslims. There is still nothing in the guidance about intra-Islam sectarianism, such as involving Wahhabis, Salafists and those with other views that have been specifically connected to ISIL, in particular Salafism. There is no discussion of that important matter in the document. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 was supposedly a response to that rising threat from ISIL-related terrorism. Does the Minister think more can be done in recognising that intra-Islamic sectarianism is not properly addressed in the guidance?
	Those British people who have been leaving the UK to join ISIL are not generally joining a war against the west. They are joining a war against other Muslims, mainly Shi’as. This document should recognise the changing nature of this threat, and the need to recognise the degree of sectarian division related to groups such as ISIL within the UK.
	In addition to this thematic problem within the guidance, I want to highlight some of the practical issues. The consultation highlighted confusion over what exactly was expected of non-Prevent-priority local authorities. Given that the Government seemed to be confused about exactly what a Prevent-priority area is, I am not terribly surprised that this is not addressed properly in the revised guidance. There is existing confusion about the role of central Government and the division of responsibilities within central Government. For example, how exactly is the burden of oversight shared between the body specifically charged with inspection of implementation—for example, Ofsted for schools—the Government Department with responsibility for that public body, for example the Department for Education, and the Home Office? What about the role of Departments, such as the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Communities and Local Government, in sharing good practice?
	Several different bodies raised concerned about this in the consultation. It will be helpful if the Government publish a clear strategy as to how they will help promote best practice in relation to Prevent. Some of the obligations on certain bodies are unclear. Neither the guidance, nor
	the Minister in the other place yesterday, have been clear as to exactly what is expected of a nursery or childminder in terms of their responsibilities under Prevent. So I ask the Minister again today to set out exactly what this guidance means in practice for a childminder.
	An issue raised in the consultation, which I also raised during the passage of the 2015 Act, was why the only NHS bodies to be included in the guidance are hospital trusts and foundation trusts. Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 many more services are now going out to the private sector. Are those private companies going to be covered by the obligations under Prevent? Why are clinical commissioning groups and other commissioning bodies not included? General practitioners at the front line may come across people who are vulnerable and who may perhaps have mental health issues; should GPs also be under some of the Prevent duties set out in the guidance, and if not, why not? On the health and wellbeing boards that the Government established, I assume that because they are part of a local authority, they also have a Prevent duty.
	On the provisions for universities, I am glad the guidance is less prescriptive than before. The new guidance has dropped the requirement that all academic presentations have to be submitted and vetted two weeks in advance, which was both absurd and unworkable. However, it is bizarre that the third paragraph of the guidance relating to universities states that further guidance will be issued to cover extremist speakers on campuses. As the Minister will be aware, that was one the most contentious issues. Yesterday the Minister in the other place did not seem to be able to explain why this was or how the issuing of updated guidance would work. I heard what the Minister said about the new guidance being a matter for the next Government, but I wonder whether he can answer the following questions. Does he think the requirement for all speeches and presentations to be submitted two weeks in advance will be included in the new guidance?
	Secondly, can the Minister explain how the external speakers guidance will be implemented? Will it require a separate statutory instrument and, therefore, approval by Parliament? Will the rest of the document have different implementation guidance from the external speakers guidance? Will there be a separate consultation?

James Brokenshire: I can answer the hon. Lady directly. Our contemplation is that there would need to be updated guidance and that a separate statutory instrument would therefore need to be approved by the House after the general election.

Diana Johnson: That is very helpful, and I thank the Minister for his straightforward response.
	Yesterday, the Home Secretary announced that compliance with the Prevent agenda would be a requirement for universities in order that they may sponsor international student visas. Will the Minister explain whether this is Government policy that will actually happen, or whether it is a Conservative party pledge for the election? I am drawing this distinction because I understand that the coalition Government are not speaking with one voice on counter-terrorism issues these days, and I want to be clear about whether that is Government policy or not.

William Cash: The hon. Lady has alluded to questions that might arise between the Conservative party and the Liberal party on terrorism. Would her
	party be in favour of putting terrorism on a par with or ahead of human rights? We have heard suggestions recently that human rights should trump terrorism.

Diana Johnson: That question opens up a whole new debate. We are dealing here with two specific statutory instruments. I know that there has been some tension in the coalition, particularly in the Treasury, with the Chancellor delivering his Budget and a separate Budget being delivered by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I wanted to be clear about whether this particular proposal was Government policy or just Conservative policy. I was seeking guidance on that.
	The focus on external speakers could create the risk that we ignore internal extremists. Where in the guidance is the specific reference to that threat? What would happen if a university’s Sunni society was agitating against the university’s Islamic or Shi’a societies? Have the Government considered the implications of such a situation for a university’s best practice?
	While we are talking about universities, I also want to ask about the IT requirements. The guidance seems to imply that all universities should introduce the filtering of internet access through the university. Can the Minister explain the degree of filtering that would be involved? Is he confident that software exists that can do the job accurately? In the past, the platforms most commonly associated with extremism have been Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Would students be prevented from accessing YouTube? Does the Minister expect this provision to apply in accommodation provided by the university, such as halls of residence or other housing provided to accommodate students? Can he confirm that the provision will not extend to a requirement for universities to collect data on internet sites accessed by their students?
	We know that the Oxford and Cambridge unions, both of which are private institutions that have a history of giving a platform to high-profile racists and extremists, are excluded from the terms of the guidance. Why did the Government choose not to specify in either the Bill or the Prevent guidance that those organisations should be covered by the duty?
	There are measures in the guidance that we very much welcome. We recognise that it has been significantly improved since the draft guidance was published over Christmas. Most importantly, we recognise that it is an extremely important document. Counter-extremism is a vital part of our counter-terrorism strategy. But there are some flaws, which I have identified, that show that the Government are playing catch-up at the end of this Parliament for neglecting counter-extremism for their first four years. Because of that, we are not where we should be today.
	I wish briefly to discuss the second statutory instrument before us, which sets out the procedural rules of judicial hearings in relation to temporary exclusion orders. Thanks to the Opposition, the 2015 Act contains judicial oversight for TEOs. I welcome the provisions in the Act and in these regulations today, which will enable judicial proceedings to hear sensitive and confidential information. It has always been the Opposition’s position that strong powers, such as TEOs, require strong checks on this power, and these regulations will enable those strong checks. Of course, the need to protect sources and sensitive information will impinge on the operation of the courts, but, as we have seen with control orders and
	subsequently TPIMs, that does not mean the courts cannot provide an effective check on Executive power. We think these regulations will be able to do that. We would add a slight caveat: the regulations are complex, as are the proceedings they are covering. We hope the Government will commit to keeping them under review and will be prepared to come back to this House with amendments if issues do arise during court proceedings that require the passing of further legislation.

William Cash: In the couple of interventions I made on the Minister and on the shadow Minister, I returned to a point I made in the lead letter in The Sunday Telegraph of 8 March. Following its lead of the previous week, I said that we were talking not about just an accident, but about a failure of legislation in dealing with the question of human rights and the charter of fundamental rights in relation to all the matters we are now discussing and to the whole problem of counter-terrorism. The Minister has had a pretty hard time from me over the past couple of years on this subject, but I wish to say to him that I acknowledge that difficult issues are clearly involved here. I am not denying that for a minute. But many of us were deeply disturbed when in a recent discussion—I cannot give the precise details but I am paraphrasing—the question arose as to whether taking action against terrorism would have human rights consequences. In that instance, the human rights lobby indicated that human rights should prevail.
	I find that view completely impossible to understand, not least because the first human right is the right to be secure—the second, and equal, human right is the right to life. We have only to consider what happened in the case of Lee Rigby or in the case of the terrible murders that have been taking place in parts of the middle east to realise the difficulty that such a view represents. On the simple proposition that human rights does not trump terrorism, we have to be absolutely clear. I am very glad to see a slight nod from the shadow Minister, because she knows that this is true. But the trouble is that there is a tremendous amount in these documents—I will not make a long speech on this, but will simply get it on the record. We discussed judicial oversight in relation to an amendment when these matters were before the House of Commons. I cannot remember whether the amendment was defeated or withdrawn, but it then went into the House of Lords and it was that shambolic debate that we recall. Judicial oversight has now come in. My point is about the substance of the issue: if judicial oversight is part and parcel of these issues before us today, then on the basis that the judges have to obey the law and the law does invoke the question of human rights, be it under the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act, or the more difficult and invasive charter of fundamental rights, which is justiciable by the European Court of Justice, we have got a real problem on our hands in dealing with terrorism. The reason why many people whom we have tried to deport—in some cases for more than a decade—were not deported was to do with human rights. Everybody should be in favour of human rights, but there are questions over how they are applied and what the procedures and thresholds are.
	I conclude with this thought: we have not got it right. As I said in that letter in The Sunday Telegraph, tinkering with control orders, TPIMs and the rest of it, might go some way to dealing with the problem but it will not resolve the issue if people can launch a challenge in the courts based on human rights or the charter of fundamental rights. They will not be deported and they will not be dealt with.
	In the Prevention of Terrorism (No. 2) Bill that I introduced in 2005, I proposed that we should override the human rights laws to ensure the security of the citizens of this country. I said that habeas corpus was absolutely fundamental. All people who are accused of a crime, whether of terrorism or anything else, are entitled to a fair trial and due process. If we have those two things, and we override the Human Rights Act and the charter, we are in a position to deal with the problems, to satisfy the requirements of fair and judicial process and to ensure that the people have a proper trial.
	My final thought is on this question of whether terrorists can get away with what they do. We know that there are many sleeping terrorists, so we are talking about a question not of if there is some form of terrorism, but of when. We should remember that the charter of fundamental rights, which came in under the Lisbon treaty, is much more difficult to deal with than the Human Rights Act, because of sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. In the context of the judicial process as a whole, it is imperative to recall that those on both Front Benches during the Lisbon treaty debates wanted to exclude that charter.
	In one of his last statements to the House, Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, said that we had an opt-out from the charter. We in the European Scrutiny Committee took evidence on that matter. Lord Goldsmith, who analysed and negotiated the arrangements in the Lisbon treaty, gave evidence. Sadly, those arrangements did not work and we are now finding that the European Court of Justice is continuously getting involved in applying the charter on a case-by-case basis. My concerns about the charter remain in relation to terrorism. Unless we resolve that, we will not be able, either under these orders or other terrorism legislation in general, to provide the security and stability that the people of this country deserve.

Mr Speaker: I was pleased to hear the words counter-terrorism towards the end of the hon. Gentleman’s oration. We are all reassured.

Paul Blomfield: I am tempted to respond to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), but, in the interests of time, I will not.
	In his opening remarks, the Minister underlined the widespread recognition, on both sides of the House, of the need to combat the threat of terrorism. That recognition, I am sure, exists well beyond the House, among people of all faiths and none, and nowhere more so than in my constituency where I have a strong Muslim community. It is a tragedy for communities, for families and for the young people themselves who get sucked into the tyranny of the so-called Islamic State. Certainly those in my local Muslim community are quick to point out that that is an abuse of words, because Islamic State is neither Islamic nor a state.
	We need to be clear and to take care in our response to the threat of terrorism that we do not exacerbate the problem by reacting in way that further alienates some sections of our communities. The risk of that has been made clear to me during my recent visits to mosques in my constituency by the very people who feel passionately that we need to resist the threat of terrorism. We also need to be careful not to respond in a way that puts undeliverable responsibilities on our institutions, and it is to that point that I will speak briefly, raising concerns about the guidance regarding higher education that apply equally to the section on further education.
	Universities, like all public organisations, have clear responsibilities under the Human Rights Act to ensure freedom of expression, but universities have unique additional responsibilities. I am pleased that the Minister acknowledged that in his opening speech, when he spoke about the need to balance the struggle against terrorism and the implementation of the guidance with the responsibility to maintain academic freedom and the opportunity for debate in our institutions of higher education. I am pleased also that, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), he made it clear that the guidance would not take effect until the guidance on speakers is approved, not simply published as he said in his opening remarks—clearly, it was a slip of the tongue. It is reassuring that approval of the further guidance is needed before the rest takes effect.
	The Minister will know, because I have mentioned it before, that 29 years ago, in my previous career in the universities sector, I drafted a code of practice on freedom of speech for the university of Sheffield. That was required in every university across the country under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, introduced by the then Conservative Government, with the aim of ensuring that universities maintained that commitment to freedom of speech. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Act imposes on universities a duty to ensure that use of their premises
	“is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with…the beliefs or views of that individual”.
	We considered that when we debated the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, now the 2015 Act, but I think it remains unclear—I hope the consultation will produce some clarity—how the requirements of the 1986 Act sit alongside the responsibilities in paragraph 105 of the guidance.

William Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman asserting that there is an absolute right to freedom of speech in all circumstances? Does he place any limitation on it?

Paul Blomfield: No, I am not asserting that. The right of freedom of speech is conditional in a number of ways. We have put in place legislation against incitement to racial hatred, for example. It is a question of how to get the balance right.
	My point is that we need to avoid conflicting legislation, and there is a potential conflict between the guidance and the 1986 Act. For example, what position would a university be in if an action were brought by a third party to challenge a decision made under the provisions of this guidance on the basis of the university’s responsibility under the 1986 Act? Unless there is absolute clarity when the final guidance is published, universities
	may find themselves in a time-wasting and expensive legal quagmire, which apart from anything else sits uncomfortably with the Government’s views on unnecessary red tape.
	My second concern relates to the general duty placed on universities to act against what is described as non-violent extremism, and it echoes a point made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. Non-violent extremism is defined in the guidance as:
	“opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance”.
	It is absolutely right to describe those values as fundamental to our society, but they are meaningful only if they allow space for those who do not share them. Clearly, as I said a moment ago in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), society does impose limits—for example, on incitement to racial hatred—but such limits have created crimes defined by this Parliament. The difficulty here is that we are giving our universities a responsibility to ban activities which are not themselves illegal, where the act of banning them may be seen by some to be in conflict with the very values that we are trying to protect.
	We treasure our universities as the institutions that need to be able to debate our fundamental values. It was for that reason that the then Conservative Government included provisions on freedom of speech in the 1986 Act. We need to take great care when we legislate on these issues, and I fear that the guidance as it stands leaves too many unanswered questions.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful for the contributions this afternoon and the broad support for the two orders that we have been discussing. A number of the contributions strayed into the broader principles and issues surrounding counter-terrorism. I shall not detain the House by repeating a Second Reading debate on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, but some important points were raised and I wish to challenge some of the underlying assumptions.
	For example, in respect of Prevent and the Prevent duty that this guidance refers to, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) made a number of assertions about the actions of this Government, and those assertions should be challenged. She asserted that there had been some muddle. The only muddle was the thinking of the Labour Government in their delivery of Prevent, and the fact that they conflated work on integration with combating terrorism activity, which stood in the way of doing that work effectively. That is why this Government were right to make a clear separation between the two parts of the work to ensure that they were effective.
	The hon. Lady made various assertions about the activity that had taken place. Perhaps I can give her some figures, rather than the ones that she cited. I do not know where she got them from and I certainly do not recognise them. We have delivered more than 180 projects since 2011 under Prevent. The programme has reached more than 55,000 people. This year we are supporting more than 80 projects. We have provided a focus that did not exist under the Labour Government and, to judge from the shadow Minister’s comments, would not exist under Labour now. It has been useful to tease that out in the course of the debate.
	I heard the point highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in relation to freedom, liberty and security, a subject to which he has rightly returned on a number of occasions. He spoke about the issue of human rights and how that may impact on the court rules and the orders before us this afternoon. As the lead Minister who was responsible for the successful deportation of Abu Qatada from this country, I well understand the challenges posed by human rights issues in the context of the Government’s actions in seeking to uphold security and the best interests of this country. Yes, I think more does need to be done, but I shall not stray into a broader debate on the need for a British Bill of Rights. Ultimately, liberty and freedom should reinforce and be reinforced by security. I do not see that as an either/or. They should be two sides of the same coin and support each other. This is no doubt an issue that will be returned to in the next Parliament, continuing the debate that took place in this one.
	The hon. Lady referred to the impact assessment and the report that she read in the newspapers. Perhaps I may comment on that. The impact assessment looked at the impact of the specific statutory instrument before the House this afternoon, particularly the impact of adding Scottish authorities to schedules 6 and 7. Neither the impact assessment, nor the chief economist’s statement were concerned with the Prevent strategy as a whole or the Prevent duty outside Scotland. I hope that clarification is helpful.
	The hon. Lady also talked about changes in Prevent priority areas. Our approach is informed by the changing threat picture and by the advice we receive from the joint terrorism analysis centre. It is in that context that we set priorities, and it is right that we keep these things under review. It is not a question of going back to the past, as she wrongly asserts; it is about the here and now, meeting the challenges and threats we face as a country and protecting those things that we hold dear, and that is the Government’s priority. I am sorry that the hon. Lady has failed to understand the issues at hand. That underlines again why Labour is simply not competent to deal with these issues.
	As I have said before, the question of how universities and colleges balance the Prevent duty with the need to secure freedom of speech and have regard to the importance of academic freedom is extremely important. The Government take that extremely seriously, which is why we amended the legislation to ensure that institutions must have particular regard to the importance of academic freedom and freedom of speech when complying with the duty—the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield).
	I reiterate that the Government are clear that universities represent one of our most important arenas for challenging extremist views and ideologies, but there is a risk that some people might use higher education institutions as a platform for drawing people into terrorism. We will use the time before the duty commences to produce further guidance on managing speakers and events in further and higher education institutions. It will be for the next Government to bring that guidance to the House early in the next Parliament for approval by both Houses, as I have
	indicated. I think it is important that there is a good understanding of the full guidance and how it relates in that manner.

Stephen Doughty: The Minister will be aware that I have previously raised concerns about that with him and with other Ministers. Given the context of devolution, particularly in the universities sector but also in education more generally, is it not absolutely vital that there are regular, proactive discussions between universities and Education Ministers across the United Kingdom, and will he ensure that in future there is Cabinet Office guidance on how often those matters should be discussed among Ministers across these islands?

James Brokenshire: The Prevent oversight board, which has an integral role in ensuring that the guidance before the House is properly recognised, has the ability to share good practice, and indeed the issues on adherence to it. That will provide a good mechanism for drawing Government together. It also needs to have good contact with the devolved Administrations. As the hon. Gentleman might know, I have already had discussions with the Welsh Government, and I certainly wish to see that continue in relation to the operation of the guidance. I also highlight the £40 million allocated for Prevent work in 2014-15 and the fact that the Prime Minister announced on 25 November that the additional £130 million that has been made available for increased counter-terrorism work will include additional funding for Prevent.
	Schools and nurseries have a duty to care for their pupils and staff. The new duty will be seen in a similar way to their existing safeguarding responsibilities. The early years foundation stage framework makes it clear that providers must be alert to any safeguarding and child protection issues in a child’s life, either at home or elsewhere, so the work on the guidance supports and strengthens that. With regard to training, we have used Prevent to train literally tens of thousands of people to raise awareness of the need to adhere to an understanding of the issue, the threats and the risks within safeguarding, and that approach will certainly be extended further.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked whether we have covered all appropriate health bodies. The foundation trusts and NHS trusts identified are the most likely to have the most direct contact with people on the front line, with regard to their staff and the hospital settings. She referred to the issue of CCGs. We will certainly keep that under review in terms of extending the duty to other bodies, and I will have an open mind in adding it at that stage. However, a CCG is effectively a commissioning body rather than a body that delivers front-line services, and I hope that she understands that distinction.

Diana Johnson: GPs are very much in the front line and may well come across people who are very vulnerable, perhaps with mental health issues, for whom provision needs to be put in place under the Prevent duties that the other health bodies would have.

James Brokenshire: GPs are generally sole practitioners, or perhaps partnerships, rather than health bodies. We will continue to keep under review the sharing of the need to raise awareness of Prevent, which has already been rolled out to tens of thousands of front-line health professionals.
	The hon. Lady highlighted sectarianism and the different natures of the threat that we face. Prevent and our Contest counter-terrorism strategy cover all forms of terrorism, as we have made clear on a number of occasions. I hope she understands that the guidance extends to all forms of terrorism, of whatever nature.
	I welcome the broad support—despite some of the comments that have been made—for the two orders, and I hope that the House will approve them both. That will make a difference in the fight against terrorism. It will also underline this Government’s commitment to ensuring national security and the safety of the public. We have that at the heart of our work and will continue to do so.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 12 March, be approved.

Senior Courts of England and Wales

Resolved,
	That the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 406), dated 26 February 2015, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 February, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7 to 10 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Extradition

That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations and Appeals) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

National Health Service

That the draft Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (Special Trustees) Amendment Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.
	That the draft False or Misleading Information (Specified Care Providers and Specified Information) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.

Companies

That the draft Companies, Partnerships and Groups (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.

REGULATORY REFORM

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 18(1)),
	That the draft Legislative Reform (Community Governance Reviews) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 11 December 2014, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 12 to 19 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Housing

That the draft Selective Licensing of Houses (Additional Conditions) (England) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.

Energy Conservation

That the draft Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 9 March, be approved
	That the draft Energy Efficiency (Domestic Private Rented Property) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.

Public Health

That the draft Nicotine Inhaling Products (Age of Sale and Proxy Purchasing) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 25 February, be approved.
	That the draft Proxy Purchasing of Tobacco, Nicotine Products etc. (Fixed Penalty Amount) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 25 February, be approved.

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 12 February, be approved.
	That the draft Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) (No. 2) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 12 February, be approved.
	That the draft Mortgage Credit Directive Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 27 February, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Before I call the petitions to be presented, I must explain to the House how we will deal with their large number. I hope colleagues will be forbearing on this matter.
	We shall deal first with the three petitions on subjects not relating to “Eligibility of Members to vote on certain issues in the House of Commons”. After those petitions have been presented, we will move on to the petitions on “Eligibility of Members to vote on certain issues in the House of Commons”. Once the first petition relating to this subject has been read to the House, with its prayer, subsequent petitions on the same topic should not be read out in full. Members should give a brief description of the number and location of the petitioners, and state that the petition is “in the same terms.” Members presenting more than one petition should present them together. When a Member has presented a petition, she or he should proceed to the Table and hand their petition to the Clerk, who will read the title of the petition and then hand it back to the Member. She or he should then proceed directly to the petitions bag at the back of the Chair. I will call the next Member immediately after the Clerk has read the title. At the expiry of half an hour, no further petitions may be presented orally, but they may be placed in the petition bag and will be recorded as formally presented.

PETITIONS

Progress of the Affordable Homes Bill

Andrew George: I wish to present a petition that was the product of constituents’ astonishment, indeed anger, that the House of Commons could vote by an overwhelming majority on 5 September to support my private Member’s Bill to scrap the Government’s under-occupancy penalty, otherwise known as the bedroom tax, and to improve opportunities for affordable homes—the vote was 306 to 231, at column 603 of Hansard, and these were eligible votes in the House of Commons—but could then effectively have its will defied by one party of the coalition that acted in a high-handed manner in refusing to grant the Bill the necessary money resolution. To any objective observer—and my constituents are paragons of objectivity—that represents a clear abuse of Executive power. The petition is signed by over 1,000 constituents, but I have also received many hundreds of letters, e-mails and messages of support and encouragement, with none opposed to the measure. Such a Bill shall not be stopped in the next Parliament.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners support the Affordable Homes Bill sponsored by Andrew George, further that the Petitioners believe that the bill should be allowed to progress and further that a petition in the St Ives constituency calling for the bill to be allowed to progress was signed by 1072 individuals.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward a money resolution to allow the Affordable Homes Bill to make progress.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001466]

Expansion of St Joseph's Catholic Primary School, Barnoldswick

Andrew Stephenson: This is a petition to the House of Commons of the residents of Barnoldswick—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: There is no need to hurry the matter unduly. May I say what a pleasure it is to see the hon. Gentleman back in the Chamber and in very good voice? As I say, these matters do not need to be unduly hurried, but we all look forward to his petition.

Andrew Stephenson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Barnoldswick,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, West Close Road, Barnoldswick is over-subscribed and wishes to expand to meet the needs of the local area, including a growing Catholic community.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School’s proposed extension.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001471]

Planning permission for McDonald's in Kenton (Newcastle)

Chi Onwurah: I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Newcastle. A similar petition online—at www.mcdonaldspetition.co.uk—has collected 860 signatures so far. The petition calls on this House to listen to the democratic will of local people and the council, who have rejected a planning application for a McDonald’s drive-through in Kenton, Newcastle, and urge the Government to reject any appeal that may be considered by a Minister. The restaurant would be opposite Europe’s largest secondary school—which is also my old school—on a busy main road and a minute’s walk from another similar restaurant. The council has rejected the application, but an appeal was lodged on the last available day to the Planning Inspectorate, which takes the decision away from local people.
	The petition states:
	The Humble Petition of the organisers of the website mcdonaldspetition.co.uk
	Sheweth that the Petitioners are campaigning to promote and strengthen local democratic oversight of the planning system; further that local people in Newcastle have rejected planning permission for a McDonald’s fast food restaurant opposite a school in Kenton and further that an appeal has been made to the Planning Inspector.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to listen to the democratic will of local people in Newcastle and duly reject the appeal to the Planning Inspector for planning permission for a McDonald’s fast food restaurant in Kenton.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P001470]

Eligibility of Members to vote on certain issues in the House of Commons

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to be joined by so many colleagues to present petitions from up and down the country calling for English votes on English laws. Petitions have also been raised by many dozens of other colleagues and constituencies. In just a few weeks, there will be a general election at which we will face a decisive choice on a number of important issues, one of which is whether the people of England should be allowed to determine their own destiny in areas where decisions have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, or whether MPs representing Scottish constituencies should be allowed to continue to decide issues that will have no effect whatsoever on their constituents.
	We have set out proposals to ensure basic democratic fairness. The Opposition are, of course, silent. They want to maintain the flexibility to strike a cosy deal, backed by nationalist MPs who want to tear our country apart, so this is an issue they would prefer to avoid. That will not satisfy the thousands of people who have signed this petition and whose voice is heard tonight. I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing us time to present the petition. As you have said, I will read it out in full so other colleagues do not need to do so. I wish to
	present a petition on behalf of those in the Beverley and Holderness constituency who want to ensure English votes for English laws.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Beverley and Holderness,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that when Parliament makes decisions affecting only the people of England or England and Wales then those decisions should be made only by the Members of Parliament elected to represent England or England and Wales.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons creates fairness in the devolution settlement by ensuring decisions having a separate and distinct effect on England or England and Wales, are only decided by the Members of Parliament elected to represent England or England and Wales.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001451]

Chris Heaton-Harris: I rise to present a petition in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on behalf of my constituents in Daventry. I also have a similar one, which I carried out online, with about 300 signatures. This is the second petition that I have presented on this issue since I became a Member of Parliament. It is a very strong and current theme in the pubs and on the streets of the villages in my constituency, so it gives me great pleasure to present this petition.
	The Petition of the residents of Daventry.
	[P001439]

Simon Reevell: I, too, rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of the people of Dewsbury. It is no more and no less than a request that such matters are dealt with fairly from the perspective of those of us who live in England, who want no more than that enjoyed by those who live elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
	The Petition of the residents of Dewsbury.
	[P001454]

Anne-Marie Morris: I rise to present a petition in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on behalf of the constituents of Newton Abbot. English laws must be made only by English MPs: this is the heart of democracy.
	The Petition of residents of the constituency of Newton Abbot.
	[P001457]

Oliver Heald: I rise to present a similar petition in the same terms on behalf of the residents of North East Hertfordshire, who feel most strongly about this issue.
	The Petition of residents of North East Hertfordshire.
	[P001458]

Henry Smith: I rise to present a petition in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on behalf of my constituents in Crawley, who believe that they should have equal weight in decisions that affect their lives in England. It is my pleasure to present the petition.
	The Petition of residents of Crawley.
	[P001459]

Karen Lumley: I rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of the residents of Redditch County. They do not want any more powers transferred away from this House, and want to ensure that English Members of Parliament are able to take decisions that only affect them.
	The Petition of residents of Redditch County.
	[P001465]

Alan Duncan: On behalf of my constituents in Rutland and Melton, I present a petition in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). We believe in a balanced and fair constitution that offers English votes for English laws.
	The Petition of the residents of Rutland and Melton.
	[P001468]

Angela Watkinson: I rise to present a petition in precisely the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). It contains 276 signatures from the residents of Hornchurch and Upminster.
	The Petition of the residents of Hornchurch and Upminster.
	[P001469]

Fiona Bruce: I rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of my constituents in Congleton, who consider this to be a matter of fairness and justice for themselves and all the people of England.
	The Petition of the residents of Congleton.
	[P001472]

Robin Walker: I rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of the residents of the faithful city of Worcester. It has been signed by more than 400 residents and 100 residents have signed a similar petition online.
	The Petition of the residents of Worcester.
	[P001473]

David Amess: I rise to present a petition in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). It has been signed by many constituents in Southend West who are incensed about the unfair voting arrangements for English Members of Parliament.
	The Petition of the residents of Southend West.
	[P001475]

Sheryll Murray: I would like to associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of my constituents in South East Cornwall.
	The Petition of the residents of South East Cornwall.
	[P001476]

Julian Sturdy: I rise to present a petition in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on
	behalf of my constituents in York Outer. It calls for English votes for English laws to deliver fairness for all.
	The Petition of the residents of York Outer.
	[P001477]

Caroline Dinenage: I, too, rise to present a petition in the same terms as that laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). I present it on behalf of my constituents in Gosport, who are so frustrated by the injustice of this situation and request English votes for English laws.
	The Petition of the residents of Gosport.
	[P001478]

Martin Vickers: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Cleethorpes in the same terms as those of my hon. Friends. My constituents feel strongly that this constitutional anomaly wants correcting. They believe in English votes for English laws.
	The Petition of the residents of Cleethorpes.
	[P001479]

LESSER-TAUGHT LANGUAGES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Wallace.)

Nick de Bois: I wish to express my disappointment at the fact that a number of exam bodies have decided to pull out of teaching GCSE and A-Level for lesser-taught modern languages. It seems that from 2016 or 2017 we will lose a large number of what are referred to as lesser-known languages, and for teaching purposes as modern languages. Those include Arabic, modern Greek, Japanese, Urdu, Bengali, modern Hebrew, Punjabi, Polish, Dutch, Persian, Gujarati and Turkish. In short, my case is that a short-term decision by exam bodies, supposedly made on the grounds of low uptake and/or financial viability, will put at risk the UK’s future trade, diplomatic and cultural relationships with many future economic success stories.
	The internationally recognised group known as the Next-11 countries—the House will be grateful that I will not list them all—have been identified as countries set to enjoy rapid and sizable growth. However, with these cuts to exam board qualifications we are set to dismiss, among others, Arabic, Bengali, Turkish and Persian. Indeed, for Britain there will not be the Next-11 countries, but there may be the Next-7. The British Council identified key languages based on economic, cultural and educational factors. Those included Arabic, Turkish, Portuguese and Japanese, yet they too have been identified as of no further interest to exam bodies.
	I fear that unfortunately we are not learning the lessons of the past. We have all become familiar with the success of the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—which were identified decades ago as the growth economies of the future. Yet to all intents and purposes, for some years we in the UK have fared less well than some of our competitor neighbouring EU countries in doing business with the BRIC countries, and I suggest that in part that was because we did not teach and master the languages of the economies that we knew were about to emerge—and emerge they did. Are we now set to repeat those mistakes with the Next-11 countries and the so-called MIST countries—those countries have taken over from the BRICs and are Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Turkey?
	Let me use the example of Turkey for illustrative purposes. Turkish is currently taught at GCSE and A-level, but the OCR board’s proposed policy is to cease to teach it as a modern language. The OCR—a not-for-profit organisation—has cited commercial viability as the reason for not proceeding with that exam, arguing that only 1,700 GCSE students and 600 A-level students entered for it. The decision to drop the GCSE and the A-level baffles me, frankly, not least because the number of candidates achieving A-level grades A to E is higher than that for courses the exam bodies are keeping, namely German and Spanish. The decision by the OCR is further complicated—and difficult to understand and challenge—by the fact that on the grounds of commercial sensitivity it will not share the financial information it claims is driving this decision. If it is abandoning the course, I struggle, as one who spent 25 years in business, to understand what could be commercially sensitive.
	Perhaps I can make a note of my first two points for the Minister. Will he confirm that the Government are not putting financial pressure on exam bodies, or, indeed, if they are putting pressure on exam bodies? Will he require them to share the financial rationale for that decision with him or his officials?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important case. May I just tell him about the Shpresa project, which works in my area among families who came to the UK from Kosovo? Teaching people Albanian is a very important part of what it does. The young people are very keen that there should be a GCSE, as there is not one at the moment. The exam body has told them that raising £100,000 would enable a GCSE to be introduced. So far, they have raised £80,000.

Nick de Bois: I pay tribute to them for their ingenuity and their willingness to try to solve their problem. That points to something I would like to say about the diaspora a little later, but I applaud their entrepreneurial and, shall we say, Conservative instincts to try to find a solution for themselves.
	I am quite happy to respect the commercial sensitivity argument about not putting information in the public domain. However, as the Minister will see later, I am anxious that if he were to explore that argument with the OCR it would perhaps either provide comfort or expose as flawed the argument that has been put forward.
	On the wider argument, does the Minister agree that the case for learning modern languages is very simple? The world is becoming even smaller. We are seeking to deliver on the Government’s pledge and target to build exports across the globe and to maintain strong trading arrangements with the EU. We will therefore need fluent, well-educated people to build our relationships with Turkey, Poland, Iran, Bangladesh and the other countries I have mentioned. We will need language skills to do business with many of those countries.

Nia Griffith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the exam boards have for a long time cross-subsidised the smaller subject areas? The key thing here is to increase the numbers of people taking the exams. We know very well that it is a huge step forward to go from speaking a language at home to working towards a qualification. We should be aiming to offer more children the opportunity to get a qualification that then makes them able to do the things he describes in the commercial world: to operate as adults, not simply as children who have a language at home.

Nick de Bois: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Her work on the all-party group on modern languages champions the arguments for why we should engage with diasporas and capitalise on their contribution and their links, through the second and third generations, as well as making the teaching of these languages widely available. We could then turn around the reputation of Britain as a country that is not necessarily interested in other languages to one that champions such skills, so we can return to and explore our roots as a trading nation. She makes the point about the advantages of the diaspora very well.
	After five years in this place, I recognise that sometimes people are cynical about taking the word of an MP, so, shocking as that might be, I shall turn to some evidence that I hope the exam bodies will take onboard. In 2013, the British Chambers of Commerce surveyed 4,768 companies, of which 70% responded that their access to greater exports was diminished by a lack of language skills. It is obvious, but it is good to have the evidence. UK Trade & Investment’s 2013 report, “The Costs to the UK of Language Deficiencies as a Barrier to UK Engagement in Exporting”, showed a staggering loss to British business of £48 billion in exports through poor language skills. I do not need a long education in mathematics to work out that this would be an astonishing return on our investment, if we could capture that £48 billion by continuing our investment in modern languages, including many of the lesser modern languages.
	In case we need more convincing, I refer the House to the latest report from Professor James Foreman-Peck, of Cardiff business school, which, in 2015, showed convincingly that small and medium-sized enterprise exporters with strong language skills achieved far higher export-to-turnover ratios. That is the holy grail if we are to continue to drive our export business. It is simple. We require exam bodies to invest in the future by keeping and growing modern language courses, not cutting them back. On the point I think the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) was making,should we not be responding to the alleged concern about entry numbers for GCSE and A-levels, as in the case of Turkish, modern Greek, Polish and Bengali, with an attempt to reach more students by marketing the unique benefits of these courses? There is a vast audience out there waiting to take up the challenge.

Jonathan Ashworth: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, the title of which is “Lesser-taught Languages”. In Leicester, these languages are not lesser taught—Gujarati, Punjabi, Bengali and Arabic qualifications are sat by hundreds of students every year. He has hit the nail on the head. If we want to expand trade, rather than getting rid of these qualifications, we should be encouraging schools to offer them, in addition to the madrassahs, temples and community organisations that currently offer them in Leicester.

Nick de Bois: Indeed. With the best of efforts, many of these supplementary educational skills—the hon. Gentleman rightly talks highly of those in his constituency—are not going to deliver the modern language skills we need at A-level and GCSE level to take pupils on to other qualifications. They are complementary. I will talk shortly about what is being done in the community, but on his point about “lesser-taught languages”, it was the term I inherited and felt worthy enough to draw to the attention of the Speaker’s Office. However, he makes very well the point that many people on Twitter have made to me. We still think of them as lesser languages, but in fact they are the languages of the future, economically, culturally and diplomatically.

Richard Bacon: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I have been to Turkey several times in recent years and have been impressed by the scale—7% or 8%—of its economic growth. There is a construction site almost everywhere. I am shocked to hear that an exam board might be
	thinking of withdrawing a Turkish GCSE qualification. Given that the state could provide these qualifications itself but chooses to allow exam boards to do it, is not the answer for the state to say to exam boards, “If you wish to be an exam board, we will hold you to a higher standard”?

Nick de Bois: My hon. Friend rightly makes a suggestion that I will be reinforcing to the Minister a little later. He is right. The Government’s job, and our job, is to lead. I know from questions I have tabled to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education that they would rightly echo the sentiments he has expressed and which I am sure others in the Chamber hold regarding the value and importance of these qualifications. With a new Parliament, perhaps we can put some oomph—that will be an interesting one for Hansard—into backing up what we aspire to deliver.
	As is evident today, there are cross-party calls, led by the all-party group on modern languages, for the political commitment to which my hon. Friend has referred. I think it is also a political commitment to transforming the reputation of the UK as essentially poor linguists. I was blessed in that my father was in the Royal Air Force, so I lived and travelled in many locations overseas. I found it quite hard to learn a modern language overseas. For many years we were in Holland, and as the Dutch told me, “We are all learning English because no one is really keen to learn Dutch.” I am not sure that that is necessarily the case now, but because we were English, we were inherently gifted by the fact that so many people wanted to learn English. That is not the way of the world now—in an ever-changing world and an ever-changing global market. I do not want Britain to be seen as a country that is reluctant to value languages other than English.
	The all-party parliamentary group rightly set out other important aims—for example, to ensure that every child achieves a high-quality language qualification by the end of their secondary education. Indeed, that is an ambition that other countries do not need themselves, as many of them are on the way to achieving it. I think it right for exam boards to seek to review their policy, which is in my opinion short-termist and taken in isolation of the needs of business and in isolation of the wider UK skills level training for the future.
	As the APPG rightly recognises, the commitment to, and the status of, modern languages are strategically important, yet this move, along with the wider concerns about the take-up of modern languages, make our position more vulnerable now and for the future. As the UK becomes more diverse, with a growing diaspora from many different countries, we should not lose sight of the unique opportunity to build closer cultural, diplomatic and business relationships with countries of origin.
	Let me explain. In Enfield North, I have a very mixed population, with strong, well-established second and third generations of Turkish-speaking communities, Greek Cypriot communities, south-east Asian and Polish communities, to name but a few. Indeed, it was interesting to find out from my research that Polish is the second most commonly spoken language in the UK. This is not a reason, in my opinion, to abandon the A-level, but a
	case to ensure that we encourage the second and third-generation Polish people to become the entrepreneurs, academics and diplomats for the UK and to ensure that we help Poland to do more business with the UK. That is surely the role of modern languages—to secure the qualification, to get it recognised as a qualification that is utterly distinct from what people might learn in the home and to allow people to use languages to progress and develop the careers they need. If I sound as if I know what I am talking about at all, it is down to the discussions I have had on this subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). It is also worth noting that Poland is currently the UK’s ninth largest export market. That is surely something that we should tap into more.

Daniel Kawczynski: Poland is one of our largest and fastest-growing export markets. Whenever I go to Warsaw, the discussions I have in Polish are completely different from those I have when I speak in English. They are so much more open to discussions when people make the effort to learn their language. I very much hope that we can save the Polish A-level, purely from a commercial perspective.

Nick de Bois: I well take my hon. Friend’s point. I am blessed with a French name, but from the presumption that I speak French I recognise the constant disappointment of French-speaking people when I am limited to saying, “I am sorry, but I do not speak very good French”—in French, at least! My hon. Friend is right that the whole tone, mood and understanding can change when we nuance business relationships by using the language of the people we hope to do good business with.
	What I said about Poland, I have already said about Turkey, and it is true of Bangladesh—a growing economy in the world, with unique and historic ties. It is set to be a growing economic partner to the UK, but that could be threatened by the decision to close the door on opportunity by not teaching Bengali, which is the 10th most spoken language in the world. That is a pretty big door of opportunity to close. I think that, in the mid to long term, these very same people can be at the forefront of the strengthening of links with their relatives of generations ago, back at home. I think that that can be part of a wider picture, and that what is becoming an increasingly smaller world can be a world in which we send our ambassadors from the United Kingdom, whose origins lie in the diaspora, to be our number one representatives abroad.
	Let me, at this point, pay tribute to Londra Gazete, a north London Turkish newspaper that has championed this issue—so much so that, in less than a week, more than 1,500 people had signed up to argue the case for it. It is not as if people are doing nothing now. The diasporas are certainly not sitting around doing nothing; they have their supplementary schools, and they follow the true Conservative principles of personal and family responsibility. Many people from different communities have set up such schools to help second and third-generation people who were born and raised in Britain to rediscover their language of origin. That is what is happening in the Turkish supplementary schools in Enfield. By keeping Turkish as a modern language, we formalise the achievement of pupils in those schools. It is a recorded academic achievement that can take them on to university, and, as I have said, they can become ambassadors and exporters for Britain.
	Teaching in the supplementary schools is not a substitute for modern languages GCSE or A-level courses. I do not want our exam bodies to limit the ambition of any diaspora second or third generation. However, as I said at the beginning, this is not just about diasporas. We should not be limiting the ambitions of all Britons who are willing to learn important languages of the future. What may be a lesser modern language now will certainly not be a lesser modern language in the future.
	I want to know whether the Minister will meet exam board decision makers—not least those on the OCR—as a matter of urgency, to raise this matter and convey the concerns that have been expressed in the House and in the modern languages community. I should be grateful if he threw his full weight and authority behind repeating the arguments that have been presented here tonight.

Mark Lazarowicz: I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) on securing the debate. I am glad that we have a few more minutes than are normally available for Adjournment debates, so that some of his colleagues can comment on this important issue.
	The debate highlights the changes proposed by examination boards in England, but the issue also affects my constituents very directly. Many people in Scotland, in my constituency and elsewhere, want to take exams in the so-called lesser-taught languages but cannot do so, because, even now, the Scottish Qualifications Authority offers a very limited range of subjects. People do take exams in subjects offered by examination boards elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but they have to pay the fees and travel to the approved centres because they cannot take them in Scotland. The only subjects offered by the SQA are Cantonese, French, Gaelic, German, Italian, Mandarin, Spanish and Urdu—and a small element of Polish in what is not a full national course. If exams in lesser-taught languages can no longer be taken in England, people from Scotland—and, presumably, in Wales and Northern Ireland—will not be able to gain these qualifications either.
	Polish is my particular concern. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is the second most commonly spoken language in the United Kingdom, and is one of the foreign languages that have the most speakers in the UK. There are a great many Polish speakers in my constituency, which contains the largest number of Polish-born people in Scotland and one of the largest in the UK. Obviously, I have a certain personal interest and experience as well. I have been approached by members of a Polish community and others in Scotland who have been campaigning for the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish authorities to ensure that Polish is included in Scottish national examination courses, both at national 4 and 5 and at a higher level. That campaign is on much the same lines as the one described by the hon. Gentleman.

Daniel Kawczynski: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. It will be a good idea to deal with the moment of interruption before the hon. Gentleman intervenes.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—(Mr Wallace.)

Daniel Kawczynski: The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) is a very active member of the all-party group on Poland which I chair, and I hope he agrees with me about the strong representations we have had from the Polish Ambassador Mr Witold Sobków as to how strongly he and the Polish diaspora feel about the importance of the retention of the Polish A-level.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman is right. As he says, there has been a campaign with strong support from the Polish community throughout the UK. Dziennik Polski has conducted a big campaign to which many of us have given our support.
	There is an issue not just for people in Scotland who want to take exams in Polish, or other languages, or for people who are interested in studying Polish. As the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) pointed out, many languages face being axed as examination subjects, at least in some parts of the UK. In so doing, we are underlining the reputation of the UK as being bad for languages. We all know that is the case anyway and this decision will only make it worse.
	This is not just about people who want to learn a language because of family or connection with the diaspora, although that is an extremely important asset that we should be taking advantage of in terms of encouraging economic links to other countries. It is also often important for cultural reasons and cultural cohesion. Anyone in the UK who wants to learn these languages will have a disincentive to do so if there is no examination at the end of the course. As has been said, that will diminish the economic well-being of this country and its ability to reach out to what are growing and important economies. Poland is the ninth largest UK export market, and the UK is the third largest investor in Poland. Turkish has been referred to as well, as has Portuguese, which is important in terms of reaching out to Brazil, one of the biggest economies in the world.
	The examination authorities in England are therefore taking a short-sighted approach, which will have a direct effect on my constituents. It is also unfortunate that so far the Scottish examination authorities have not chosen to offer an exam in Polish and perhaps other languages as well. If anyone in the Scottish Government or their supporters in this House is paying attention to this debate, I hope they take that message back home, and I hope the Government here will take the steps highlighted by the hon. Member for Enfield North in trying to ensure this regrettable decision by the exam boards is reversed, so that the immense talent and ability which can be released by encouraging these languages to be learned and studied with a qualification at the end can be maximised for the benefit of the entire UK in the way that has been so amply outlined in this debate.

John Randall: I will not detain the House for long. I have a declaration: I am probably the only Member of this House with a degree in Serbo-Croat, and I studied Russian as well at
	A-level. I therefore have a strong love of languages that are probably not the most well-known ones, but it is important that they are taught.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) on securing this debate. He is a doughty champion for all his constituents, but on this occasion particularly for those who have these languages and their families. This is very important: it is important for their culture, and it is important for business and many other reasons, but it is also important because when people who might not even have family links learn those languages and then go on business trips and so forth, they learn about the culture of the place. They can then read things and learn a lot more. They are far better equipped to talk to people in those countries and those who are here, and that is incredibly important.
	This is also a matter of politeness. Anybody can learn a few words of a language. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North was being modest when he said that he could not speak much French. The ability to speak just a few basic words can open doors. If people are learning these languages, we should encourage them by giving them a qualification. I entirely agree that we should not be cutting the study of these minor languages; we should be encouraging more of them to be taught. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) mentioned Albanian. I have become involved in the fight against modern slavery, and it is important that when I go to countries such as Albania and Slovakia I can at least understand what people are saying. We should be encouraging more people to learn these languages.
	We have not mentioned intelligence work. We never know when we are suddenly going to need native speakers, for whatever reason. I never thought, when I studied Serbo-Croat, that the events in Yugoslavia were going to happen. It was just a rather nice backwater in the Balkans at the time, but we saw what eventually happened there. These matters are incredibly important.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I will shortly be taking our leave of this place. You no longer have the opportunity to speak in debates as I do, but I should like to put on record my thanks to you for all that you have done in the House. I also want to plug my old college, the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, which is now part of University college London. It offers excellent evening courses in all these different languages and, as I am about to have more time on my hands, I might well start to learn some of them.
	A few years ago, courses were offered in the House of Commons. Perhaps you participated in them, Madam Deputy Speaker. They consisted of two-hour sessions, and I remember that the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who is now the Deputy Leader of the House, was learning Portuguese. I think he was brought up in Portugal. I did Punjabi, which has helped me ever since. I can now say to my Sikh businessmen in Punjabi that I am called John Randall. That opens doors for me everywhere. The fact that I have a beard, and until recently had a shop, has also helped.
	Our country cannot afford not to encourage the teaching of these languages. As for the Poles, we should be doing everything we can, because they are an important trading partner. Poles have been in my constituency
	since the second world war, and they have given so much to this country. It is the least we can do to ensure that their children and grandchildren can learn their language and learn about their country and their culture.

Daniel Kawczynski: When the Prime Minister appointed me as his envoy to the central and eastern European diaspora in the United Kingdom, I was obviously very pleased. I am the first British Member of Parliament ever to have been born in Poland. As I said earlier, when I go to Warsaw and speak to representatives of non-governmental organisations, of commercial operations and of the Government, the conversation is completely different when I speak in Polish. People open up and tell me things that they would not normally tell me, and I am able to engage with them in a completely different way.
	As a result, I have now asked a lady in Shrewsbury to help me to improve my Polish, and she comes every Saturday to teach me and my daughter, Alexis. Alexis is eight years old, and she is much better at learning the language than I am, as children often are. Alexis had come to me and said, “Daddy, I’m half Polish and I want to learn the language.” That made my heart melt; I was so proud of her. I very much hope that she will do Polish A-level one day, and that she will be able to speak the language fluently. I know that, whatever walk of life she follows—perhaps she will have a business career—knowing a second language will give her a huge advantage. If we are going to remain in the European Union, it is vital that we engage with our political counterparts in their own language.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). He and I share a passion for British exports; we both come from an exports background. I spent 14 years exporting British goods around the world before I became a Member of Parliament. If we look at the world map, we see that we are exporting most to English-speaking countries but that, surprisingly, there is a huge dearth—a void—of British commercial interests in many parts of the world simply because we do not understand the language. The Prime Minister has set a target of £1 trillion of exports by 2020, which some say it is unachievable. I believe it can be achieved, but we have to help the small and medium-sized enterprises, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North referred. One in five SMEs is exporting and if we can get that to one in four, we will completely wipe out our trade balance deficit. We are not going to get back to substantial economic prosperity in this country unless our SMEs are exporting to countries to which hitherto we have not exported. These languages are of huge importance in that, so I implore the Minister there. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North and I am very grateful for what he has done. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister about the interventions he is going to make to ensure that these vital language courses stay.

Richard Bacon: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: May I just ask you, Mr Bacon, to allow enough time for the Minister to reply? This debate will end at 7.30 pm.

Richard Bacon: I have an eager eye on the clock and I will abide by what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a brief contribution.
	Some 10 days ago—two weeks ago—in my capacity as co-chair of the all-party group on Iran, I helped host five Members of the Iranian Parliament here in Westminster for most of a week. When we were not in Westminster, one of the most interesting trips we did was to Cambridge, where we met the professor of Persian studies, some young British students who were studying Persian, some young members of the diaspora and some people who had come here from Iran to study at masters and at PhD level. On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made, when we look at the statistics on this country’s exports to Iran, we find that, sadly, for a variety of reasons we are all too familiar with, they have been going down. Interestingly, that has been while United States’ exports in areas where the US has a competitive advantage, such as agriculture and pharmaceuticals, have been increasing substantially.
	There will come a time when our relations with Iran, including our commercial relations, are able to flourish and prosper in the way that many of us would like to see. When that time comes, we have to be ready. We need to be preparing for that now. We need to make it more normal to learn “lesser-taught languages” as they are termed in this debate. The best part of that description is “taught”, because they are not lesser in any other sense. I am looking at my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and I recall a friend of mine who is now at The Economist teaching me a phrase in Serbo-Croat many years ago which turned out to mean, “Why don’t you speak Serbo-Croat?” I have yet to find a useful use for it.
	The truth of the matter, however, is that the single most human part of the encounter during the Iranians’ visit was when I recited a poem in Farsi that I had taken the trouble to learn. That opened a whole set of windows that had hitherto been closed in the way we dealt with each other. The Iranians went home, reporting back that they had had a very successful visit. I only hope we can do more business in the future and improve the relations between our countries, but the ability to communicate with each other is of the essence.
	Let me make one point about the comments made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). At one point in his speech he used the phrase “examination authorities”. We all know what he means by that, but these people are not authorities; they are contractors. They have been given the chance by the state to offer qualifications, or they have qualifications that are widely recognised as if they have the force of the backing of the state, but the state does not have to leave it there. We are in an environment where we have been hearing the phrase “more for less” from many different domains for several years, and that is what we ought to expect of the examination authorities. Instead of saying, “We don’t have enough people to offer a Polish qualification, an Iranian qualification, a Serbo-Croat qualification or a Portuguese qualification”, we should be saying, “These are the economies of the future, which are growing and with which we will be trading. Let’s find a way to make sure, by the use of imagination
	and wit, that we can do more for less. Either you come with us on this journey, provide more for less and show that you can do it, or we will find someone else who can.”

Nick Gibb: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) on securing this debate, and pay tribute to him for his support of the study of foreign languages and for the way in which he consistently and energetically fights for the interests of his constituents in Enfield North.
	Learning a foreign language is both a great pleasure and an excellent preparation for life in a modern country such as Britain, which has an outward looking and globalised economy. I also pay tribute to the all-party group on modern languages for the work it does in highlighting the importance of studying a modern foreign language in our modern economy. I also welcome the literally unique contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall)—the only Member with a degree in Serbo-Croat—and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), the only Member who was born in Poland. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) also made a powerful short speech.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North is right to highlight the importance of languages for future economic growth. A report by the CBI published in 2014 found that 65% of businesses say they value foreign language skills, most importantly for building relations with overseas customers and overseas suppliers.
	The Government’s programme of education reform has been the most far-reaching for a generation. We have restored rigour by introducing a new knowledge-based curriculum, which draws from the curriculums of the highest-performing jurisdictions around the world. We have raised the bar by reforming GCSEs and A-levels so that young people study genuinely demanding content, which provides a solid basis for further study and employment. Raising the status of foreign languages—both to increase take-up and improve attainment—has been central to this programme of reform.
	In 2010, the study of foreign languages in English schools was in a precarious state. The removal of languages from the key stage 4 national curriculum in 2004 by the previous Labour Government led to a 36 percentage point decline in the number of pupils studying a modern foreign language at GCSE. In 2000, 79% of pupils studied a foreign language at GCSE. By 2010, that had fallen to 43%.
	This Government have taken decisive action to address that decline. We agreed with the APPG on modern languages when, in its manifesto for languages, it talked about the need for a national recovery programme. We listened to the evidence on the importance of starting to learn a language early. Following the introduction of the new national curriculum in September last year, it is now compulsory for maintained primary schools to teach a language to all pupils between the ages of seven and 11. The new curriculum is also more demanding, with higher expectations for pupils’ speaking, writing, translation and grammar.
	We recognised that the new curriculum would present challenges for some schools. We are therefore providing £1.8 million to fund nine projects across the country to support teaching of modern foreign languages. Many schools have responded well, and are going even further than the national curriculum requires. The language trends survey for 2014-15, published last week, found that 49% of primary schools are already teaching a language to five to seven-year-olds, even though it is not required by statute.
	The new English baccalaureate performance measure has also been a hugely successful reform. The EBacc represents the strong academic core of subjects that all pupils should study, including a foreign language. As a result, the number of pupils in England taking at least one modern foreign language at GCSE has increased by 20% since 2010, and 29% since 2012.
	We are also reforming GCSEs and A-levels so that they are more demanding and provide students with necessary knowledge for further study and employment. In 2014, we published reformed subject content requirements for GCSE, AS and A-level qualifications in modern foreign languages. The new GCSE will be more demanding, and most exam questions in modern languages will be asked in the target foreign language.
	At A-level, the content has been strengthened, with new requirements for students to read foreign language literary works and develop a wide command of complex spoken and written language. In the past, some of the lesser-taught language GCSEs included no assessment of speaking or listening. Ofqual has decided that those elements, both of which are crucial to linguistic fluency, must be assessed in the reformed qualifications.
	The new content for modern foreign languages specifies the knowledge expected of pupils taking the qualification in terms that apply to all languages. It is then for awarding organisations—the exam boards—to determine which languages to offer at GCSE, AS and A-level. We have made it clear to the exam boards that we want a broad range of subjects available to study. French, German and Spanish will always be important, and they do attract significant numbers of candidates: there are 150,000 entries for French GCSE, 57,000 for German and 71,000 for Spanish. Those subjects were therefore the first to be reformed and the new GCSEs will be in place for first teaching in September 2016, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North that young people should have the opportunity to study other, less familiar languages if we are to compete in the global economy.
	British firms will increasingly demand staff who are fluent in languages such as Mandarin, Arabic, Polish and Turkish as they seek new markets and opportunities. We have therefore allowed the awarding organisations further time to develop new qualifications in additional languages for first teaching in 2017. They are free to develop qualifications in any language, provided that their specifications meet the subject content requirements set by the Department for Education and assessment arrangements set by Ofqual. Clearly, there is work involved in developing new GCSEs and A-levels that meet the new demands, and financial costs associated with the reform, but that should not prevent awarding organisations from offering reformed qualifications in a range of languages if they choose.
	As my hon. Friend highlights, some exam boards have announced their intention to discontinue their qualifications in some languages. Those decisions appear to have been driven more by short-term commercial interests than by a robust analysis of the language skills our economy will clearly require in the future. He has raised specific concerns about AQA’s plan to discontinue Polish A-level and OCR’s plan to discontinue Turkish at both GCSE and A-level. I understand that 18,000 residents in the London Borough of Enfield speak Turkish as their first language, and my hon. Friend is right to recognise the extraordinary contribution the community makes to the local area and to London's economy. I agree with him that it is important that Turkish continues to be taught so that more young people can enjoy Turkish literature and culture, and so that British firms are well placed to make the most of Turkey's rapid economic growth. He and other hon. Friends mentioned Turkey’s growth, which I can tell them was about 26% between 2010 and 2013.

Richard Bacon: I am listening with great interest, but I hope my hon. Friend recognises the difference between, on the one hand, the unsurprising commercial considerations of commercial contractors making decisions in the short term, and on the other hand, the interests of this country, which are longer term. I am slightly uncomfortable with the language he is using about the choice being for the examining boards to make—that it is for them to decide what they offer. Surely it is for us as a country and as the House of Commons, and for Her Majesty’s Government, to decide what we want to do, and then to make sure that arrangements are in place—whether they are commercial or otherwise—to achieve the goals that we want to achieve?

Nick Gibb: There are genuine commercial factors that the awarding bodies have to take into account. We could compensate or pay awarding bodies to produce qualifications. I will deal with that point shortly.

Mark Lazarowicz: I look forward to the Minister coming to that point, and I hope he will show what the Government are going to do to encourage or even require the examining boards to meet the demand and the requirement for other languages that has been so clearly identified in this debate. We want not just good words, but action to make that happen.

Nick Gibb: I will come to that in a moment. First, I wanted to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North and to other hon. Members that OCR plans to continue offering an IGCSE in first language Turkish, which I hope will be of interest to many of my hon. Friend’s constituents who already speak Turkish.

Nick de Bois: I want to put it on record that that has been examined by many people, but it is nowhere near the standard that we require for A-level and it will not achieve the objective, for example, of helping someone get into a university with that qualification.

Nick Gibb: I will take that point to the awarding organisations. Although the IGCSE will not count in school performance tables, the qualification is recognised by further and higher education as a demonstration of a student’s proficiency in the language. Clearly, though,
	the availability of the IGCSE is not a full substitute for a GCSE in Turkish as a foreign language, for those who are learning it as a second language rather than as a first language.
	I have listened to the powerful case made by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members this evening on behalf of their constituents and others who recognise the importance of languages to our economy. I should point out, for the sake of balance in this debate, that the Turkish GCSE attracted only 1,403 entries last year, and for the Turkish A-level there were only 354 entries. Indeed, the entry figures have been consistently low for a number of years.
	These relatively small numbers create some genuine difficulties for awarding organisations. In addition to diseconomies of scale, they may struggle to recruit sufficient staff to mark the exam and find it more difficult to set grade boundaries, given the statistical variability which is more likely in smaller cohorts. Nevertheless, I believe that these problems may well have solutions. Exam boards manage to recruit markers for the current version of the GCSE and they manage to set grade boundaries effectively.
	My hon. Friend is correct. It is not the Government who are applying pressure, financial or otherwise, to reduce the number of foreign language GCSEs; quite the contrary. Having listened carefully to the arguments made by him and others, both during the debate and outside the Chamber, I will raise his concerns and those of other hon. Members with the chief executives of the awarding organisations, including OCR and AQA, and I will invite them to reconsider their current position—I will do that tomorrow—and to subordinate what I believe to be a commercial calculation to the far more significant long-term economic and cultural considerations for this country. In doing so, I will also question them closely about the financial rationale for their decisions.
	I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and others for raising this important issue, and I pay tribute to his firm support for the key place of languages in our long-term plan for education and the economy.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.